Kyle Walker’s legal woes continue with news that his wife, Annie Kilner, has now issued divorce proceedings. In this article, we revisit his recent legal proceedings related to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
Well-known for his achievements on the football field, Kyle Walker often makes headlines for his professional career. However, this time, the media spotlight is not on his footwork, but on his family law matters involving his former partner, Lauryn Goodman.
These proceedings relate to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, which provides financial support for children when parents are unmarried and unable to claim under other legislation. The Act aims to ensure that children receive adequate support and resources, even when parents are no longer together.
What orders can the court issue under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989?
Under this Act, applications can be submitted by a parent, guardian, or special guardian for a child under 18. The court has the power to issue various financial orders including:
- Periodical payments,
- Secured periodical payments,
- Lump sum,
- Settlement of property, in respect of property to which either parent is entitled (either in possession or in reversion),
- Transfer of property, in respect of property to which the parent is, or the parents are, entitled (either in possession or in reversion).
Background
Media coverage has widely reported that Kyle Walker and Lauryn Goodman’s affair led to the birth of two children. Just 48 hours after their second child’s birth, Lauryn filed for a financial provision order under the Act, seeking financial support aligned with Kyle’s significant footballer income. This was the second set of proceedings; a final order regarding their eldest child had already been issued in November 2022.
Schedule 1 claims are less common since maintenance is usually handled by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), which has primary jurisdiction for assessing and enforcing child maintenance. However, CMS’s income cap of £156,000 excludes Kyle’s high earnings, permitting Lauryn to seek additional support under Schedule 1.
A key point in this case is the potential for a parent to make unreasonable demands regarding financial provisions. For instance, Lauryn requested a £31,200 lump sum to install an astroturf football area at her Sussex home, based on her one-year-old daughter’s showing early talent, which could lead to a career as a ‘Lioness.’
However, it’s recognised that Lauryn’s children are entitled to similar circumstances as Kyle’s four children within his marriage. In November 2022, financial provisions for their eldest child included £96,000 per year in child maintenance (£8,000 per month), covering all nursery and school fees, £1,300 per month for a nanny, and additional payments for vehicles and furniture. Following the birth of their second child, Lauryn returned to court to reassess provisions for both children.
Courts considerations
In deciding on a financial order, the court must take into full account all aspects of the case, including the earning capacity of each parent, their financial needs, obligations and responsibilities (now or in the foreseeable future), the financial need of the child, the income and earning capacity (if any) of the child, any physical or mental disability of the child, and the intended or current education or training of the child.
In the case of Kyle and Lauryn, the Judge noted, that in considering all factors of the matter, the welfare is not the court’s paramount consideration under Schedule 1, however, it does remain a constant factor influencing the outcome of the decision.
The child’s upbringing should reflect the resources and lifestyle of the higher-earning parent and bear similar circumstances if the parents were to be in a relationship. However, the court must also protect against unreasonable claims made on the child’s behalf and are not disguised attempts to benefit the parent who has day-to-day care of the child.
Therefore, the court balances financial resources with the genuine needs of the child, ensuring that any order is appropriate and justified. In the case of Lauryn’s claim, the request for astroturf was dismissed as they did not deem it necessary or reasonable in the context of all the circumstances.
As with many family law issues, Schedule 1 claims can often be complex and require specialist legal advice, particularly in circumstances where one party is a high earner. If you need assistance with these or other family matters, please reach out to our family team on 0191 384 2441.
