Lauryn Goodman v Kyle Walker: Understanding Schedule 1 Applications
The Judgment of HHJ Hess following the Final Hearing of Lauryn Goodman’s financial remedies application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, published following the making of a Final Transparency Order, has gained significant media attention. The mainstream media have widely reported the sums being sought by Lauryn Goodman, but few have shed any light upon Schedule 1 applications. It is time for a whistle-stop tour.
What Is A Schedule 1 Application?
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 allows for a parent, guardian, special guardian, or any person named in a Child Arrangements Order as a person with whom a child is to live to make an application to the Court for financial provision for the child.A Schedule 1 application is particularly relevant in cases where the parents were unmarried and not in a civil partnership. This legal provision ensures that the financial needs of the child are met, regardless of the parents' marital status.
What Financial Orders Can Be Made Under Schedule 1?
The Court may make the orders referred to in Schedule 1, Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989, which include periodical payments, lump sum payments, the transfer of property, and the settlement of property. These orders are vital tools under Schedule 1, as they provide various means for securing financial stability for the child.Periodical Payments: The ability of the Court to make periodical payments orders is of particular significance in the following circumstances:
Where there is a maximum Child Maintenance Service Assessment and the non-resident parent has an income in excess of £156,000 gross per annum, as the Court can order that they pay more than the CMS assessment.
Where the child is at school or undergoing vocational training, as the Court can order that some or all of the expenses incurred in connection with this are met.
Where the child is disabled, as the Court can order some or all of the expenses attributable to the child’s disability are paid.
Lump Sum Payments: Lump sum payments under Schedule 1 are typically ordered by the Court to meet capital expenditure of a singular nature, for instance, furnishing a home or purchasing a car.Transfer and Settlement of Property: The Court can order a parent to purchase a property for, or transfer a property to, the parent with whom the child lives. These orders under Schedule 1 usually terminate once the child reaches the age of 18 or once they cease full-time tertiary education, and this is also normally the point at which any property is returned to the parent who provided it. The statutory provisions regarding the duration of orders for financial relief are contained in Schedule 1, Section 3.
Key Considerations for the Court in Schedule 1 Cases
The Court is guided by Schedule 1, Section 4 of the Children Act 1989 when making orders for financial relief. These considerations include:
The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources that a parent has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which a parent has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
The financial needs of the child.
The income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child.
Any physical or mental disability of the child.
The manner in which the child was being, or was expected to be, educated or trained.
The Court’s paramount consideration under Schedule 1 is the welfare of the child at the centre of the application.
Case Study: Lauryn Goodman v Kyle Walker and the Application of Schedule 1
Lauryn Goodman made a financial application under Schedule 1 in relation to her son with Kyle Walker, Kairo, back in June 2020. These proceedings concluded with significant financial provisions, including:
The Father being ordered to purchase a property for the Mother and Kairo to occupy up to a value of £1,850,000 within a 100-mile radius of a town in Sussex (which was to be sold upon Kairo ceasing education up to a first-degree or earlier if the Mother cohabited with or married another person).
The Father making child periodical payments at £8,000 pcm with CPI increases in March each year and additional child periodical payments in respect of child-care costs.
Lump sums towards the Mother’s debts and home furnishings.
The provision of a replacement car every 4 years.
In June 2023, Lauryn Goodman made another application under Schedule 1 in relation to her daughter with Kyle Walker, Kinara. The Court awarded her, amongst other things:
A further lump sum of £5,000 as a furniture fund specifically targeted at Kinara’s needs.
A global figure for child periodical payments for Kairo and Kinara at a rate of £12,500 pcm, payment of 24 hours per week of child-care costs at £20 per hour (£2,080 pcm) until September 2027 and thereafter 12 hours per week until September 2033.
Payment of £12,000 for a car for the nanny.
The above must be considered in the context of Kyle Walker’s income being found to be in the region of £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 per annum gross, and Lauryn Walker being found to be really quite impecunious in terms of income and capital. Nonetheless, this case demonstrates how substantive the support can be pursuant to a Schedule 1 claim.
Key Takeaways on Schedule 1 Applications
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides an essential mechanism for unmarried parents to obtain financial provision for a child upon separation. Despite its potential, it remains an underutilised provision in family law.
Financial provisions under Schedule 1 can include periodical payments, lump sum orders and property transfers or settlements.
The Court will always prioritise the financial needs and welfare of the child when making decisions under Schedule 1.
Written by Isabel Clarke, Consultant Barrister at Unit Chambers. Law is correct as of 28th August 2024. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.
