The high-profile legal case involving England footballer Kyle Walker and his ex-partner, influencer Lauryn Goodman, has brought significant attention to the nuances of family law, specifically focusing on child maintenance and financial provision for children.
Background
Ms Goodman raised an action at the Central Family Court in England seeking financial provision for the parties' two children in terms of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Across the UK, the Child Maintenance Service usually has sole jurisdiction to assess child maintenance (as opposed to a court), although there are some exceptions. However, where a paying parent's gross weekly income exceeds £3,000 (a total of more than £156,000 gross per year), the resident parent (the parent with care of the child/ren) can raise an application to court seeking a "top up."
Given that Mr Walker is a high earner, the Central Family Court was able to consider an application by Ms Goodman for "top up" financial provision. The English and Welsh legislative provisions (contained in the 1989 Act) allow for a range of orders, including periodical payments, lump sum payments, and transfer of property orders, aimed at securing the financial needs of a child or children. When adjudicating, the court considers a number of factors, including:
- the financial needs of the child and the income,
- earning capacity,
- property; and,
- other financial resources of both parents.
The recent decision in Goodman v Walker
Ms Goodman had previously secured an order for financial provision in respect of her son. Mr Walker made voluntary payments beyond the terms of that order. Following the birth of the parties' daughter, Ms Goodman made a financial remedies application, seeking to vary the terms of the previous order.
The court considered evidence and issued an unredacted written judgment, which was supported by Mr Walker but went against the wishes of Ms Goodman.
In the judgment, the court noted that the parties had reached agreement on certain matters. However, a large number of other matters remained contentious and the court, having heard evidence, required to make a determination. Amongst other things, this included:
- a request by Ms Goodman for a lump sum payment of £33,000 to fund the cost of air conditioning (opposed by Mr Walker),
- a request by Ms Goodman for a lump sum payment of £31,200 to fund the cost of astroturf for her garden on the basis that her one-year-old daughter had kicked a football from a crawling position and, according to Ms Goodman, could be a future Lioness (opposed by Mr Walker),
- a further furnishing fund of £20,000 (whereas Mr Walker offered £2,500), child periodical payments of £14,750 per month plus future CPI inflation for both children (whereas Mr Walker offered her £12,500 per month plus future CPI inflation); and,
- a lump sum of £30,000 to fund a car for a nanny (opposed by Mr Walker).
In summary, the court criticised the financial claims made by Ms Goodman as being excessive and unjustified. On almost every aspect of Ms Goodman's claim, the court either refused to make an award or preferred the proposals by Mr Walker. Judge Hess summarised his assessment of the situation as follows:-
“In my view the father’s presentation before me was sensible, honest and reliable. Where he felt that the mother may have a point, he readily conceded it with some grace, generosity and kindness. Plainly, he was embarrassed and remorseful as to the difficult situation in which he has placed a number of people, including all of his children, and regretted his decision-making in trying to keep his paternity … a secret; but he has in my view acted with dignity and generosity (and, once the secret was out, honesty) in facing up to the financial and personal consequences of what happened. In contrast, my assessment of the mother is that she was not reliable, often said what she thought would help her case rather than what was true, failed to make a calm and measured assessment of what she needed and often exaggerated her need to spend money (I think the father was correct to observe that the mother was in many ways treating him as an open-ended cheque book). She was unable to give any credit to the father for the reliable and generous financial support he has in fact given her and was happy to take every point against him. She made few concessions where concessions might have been appropriate..."
The ability of the Scottish courts to make top-up awards
Section 1 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 provides a very similar legal mechanism to that contained within the 1989 Act as regards the ability of the court to make an order for aliment in respect of a child or children beyond standard child maintenance payments. There are believed to be no reported case in Scotland concerning top-up aliment claims. However, when analysing the statutory provisions, if the Goodman v Walker case were to be heard in a Scottish court, the court would similarly be required to consider the financial needs of the children and the parties' income and resources. Anecdotal information from unreported cases suggests that the court may exercise a similarly conservative approach to the claims for top-up maintenance and a sceptical view of what it considered to be lavish requests.
Our team of family lawyers can assist in providing advice in relation to provisional provision relating to children. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require advice.
Contributor
Senior Associate
