Lauryn Goodman -v- Kyle Walker and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989

The legal troubles between influencer Lauryn Goodman and professional footballer Kyle Walker have been much reported in the media. This dispute involved an area of family law that we deal with at Johnson Astills commonly referred to as a Schedule 1 matter.

Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 allows for a parent, step-parent, guardian or other person named in a child arrangements order (as a person with whom a child is to live) to apply for an order for financial provision, usually against the other parent. This is usually done in situations where the parents were not married, and where a maintenance assessment falls outside the jurisdiction of the Child Maintenance Service, this occurs in situations where the non-resident parent earns more than £156,000 gross per annum. Evidently, Mr Walker as a Manchester City player and Vice-Captain of the England Team earns far in excess of this, with HHJ Hess adopting a figure of between £7,000,000 and £10,000,000 gross per annum.  

In addition under a Schedule 1 application, the Court may make an order for a lump sum to be paid, for property to be transferred or held on trust for the benefit of the child, providing the child lives with the applicant and until such time until the child reaches 18 years or completes either secondary or tertiary education whereupon the property will be transferred back to the payer or sold and the proceeds paid to the payer.  Parties can agree a departure from the order which the court has the power to impose, which is reflected in the judgement of HHJ Hess.  

Mr Walker and Ms Goodman had already engaged in previous Schedule 1 proceedings, which HHJ Hess refers to the “Kairo” proceedings, referring to the names of the firstborn child from Mr Walker’s and Ms Goodman’s relationship. In the “Kairo” proceedings, Mr Walker was ordered to purchase a property for Ms Goodman and Kairo to live in, of which Kairo himself was to have a 10% interest in, which was to be sold should Ms Goodman cohabit or marry, or Kairo ceasing education up to a first degree, and for Mr Walker to pay child maintenance of £8,000 per calendar month plus child-care costs and make several lump sum payments to Ms Goodman.

The “Kinara” proceedings were the proceedings which recently concluded. The parties had agreed that Mr Walker would pay further child-support payments for the benefit of Kinara, and HHJ Hess ordered for Mr Walker to make further lump sum payments to Ms Goodman and for the child maintenance payments to be increased to £12,500 per calendar month.

It is important to note that the judgement was reached on an analysis of what would be fair and reasonable to be paid by Mr Walker, regardless of what the Mr Walker and Ms Goodman were claiming. HHJ Hess will have compared the finances of the Mr Walker and Ms Goodman against the financial needs of the children, considering the unique requirements of the children themselves. He will not have been influenced by any moralistic argument of what Ms Goodman ought or ought not to be entitled to as the carer for the children.

If you decide that you need to make an application under Schedule 1, or find yourself on the receiving end of such an application, please contact the Family Team at Johnson Astills today to discuss your matter further. Please call us at our office in Leicester on 0116 255 4855 or our office in Loughborough on 01509 610 312 and ask to speak to a member of the Family Team. Alternatively, you may prefer to email us at legal@johnsonastills.com or fill in our enquiry form.