Family Court lift anonymity in family judgment on a financial claim brought against a Premier League footballer by the mother of his two children

A judgment has been made public in a case involving a celebrity influencer, Lauryn Goodman, who brought a financial claim under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 against her former partner and England footballer, Kyle Walker.  The pair, who have two children together, were in Court for a two-day final hearing on 16^th and 17^th July 2024 to determine the extent of child maintenance and other financial provision that the father should provide to the mother for the children.

The court made a final transparency order at the conclusion of the proceedings, which has permitted the judgment to be published in full, with the names of the parties and children involved being unredacted.  The decision to make a final transparency order followed an application by three separate newspapers for the judgment to be made public, which was supported by the father who wanted the judgment made public.  The mother had opposed the publication on the basis that it could breach her children’s right to privacy.

In most cases involving children, including financial claims relating to children, the starting point is that proceedings are private and there should be no publication of material which may identify a child involved in such proceedings.  But the Court has the power to dispense with that privacy and publish a judgment where it is in the interest of the public and that is properly balanced against the interests of the children involved.  There is a current shift towards more transparency in Family Courts and there are Transparency Reporting Pilots for Financial Remedy Proceedings ongoing in the Central Family Court in London and several other Courts across the country.

The decision in this case turned on the fact that the mother, who said she sought to protect the privacy of her children, had simultaneously published significant details of her children, the situation between her and the father and her views about the father in both the press and on social media.  The Judge commented that he agreed with the arguments advanced by the representative for one of the newspapers that “it would be a nonsense, opening the court to ridicule, to try to redact or anonymise this judgment to prevent the identification of the parties”.  The Judge went further in his criticism to state that the mother had “not just cooperated with, but actively instigated, press coverage placing in the public domain her own children”.  The Judge thought without such publication the mother would “be tempted, one way or another […] to seek defiantly to put in the public domain her views about the court’s findings”. 

The mother has been vigorous with her social media posting throughout this period and it appears the Judge was keen to set the record straight here.  This may well become a leading case in the development of transparency in such high-profile cases and perhaps an indication of the impact of social media use in the Courts decisions about keeping such cases private. 

For any advice on the privacy of family proceedings, or any other family law matter, speak to a member of our specialist family law team.