Premier League footballer and England Vice Captain, Kyle Walker, has been involved in a long running court battle with influencer Lauryn Goodman after Kyle fathered two children with Lauryn outside his marriage to childhood sweetheart Annie Walker, with whom he shares four children.
The parties agreed after the birth of their first child that Kyle would purchase a home for Lauryn and their son and agreed child maintenance payments of £110,000 a year. After the birth of their second child, Lauryn made an application to increase the maintenance payments as well as lump sum payments for various other expenses, such as £33,000 for an air conditioning unit, £31,000 for astroturf and £70,000 for a brand-new Mercedes.
Lauryn called for an almost complete prohibition of publication of information, telling the court that any published judgment should be redacted and/or anonymised. However, His Honour Judge Hess has taken the unusual step of publishing the full family court judgment of the case, after concluding that to anonymise or redact the judgment would have opened the court to ridicule.
The Judge pointed out that Lauryn’s prior actions were in contradiction of her requests for personal privacy. He highlighted her recent attendance at the Euros with her son dressed in an England football shirt with the name ‘Daddy’ on the back and the fact that she was ‘willingly photographed’. It was mentioned that the parties were well-known celebrity figures and much of the reporting on their long-running dispute was the result of one or both parties giving interviews to the press.
The Judge also commented in his judgment that ‘the right of the press to scrutinise and comment upon the court’s procedures and decisions, and what the mother has requested of the father and how he has responded, are on this occasion a greater priority.’ He went to further criticise Lauryn by suggesting that if the children suffer any harm from the publicity of these proceedings, then it has already happened and ‘it will largely be the result of the mother’s own decisions and actions’.
Reflecting on Judge Hess’s comments, it is clear that the children’s right to anonymity was waived due to the actions of the parents and the way they have conducted themselves in the press. Transparency in reporting judicial decisions is an important issue, in this case it was a finely balanced judgment with the judge erring on the side of transparency, but this is an unusual step where children are concerned.
If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Melissa Gire on email: meg@cooperburnett.com or Gemma Gillespie on email: gjg@cooperburnett.com or tel: 01892 515022.
This blog is not intended as legal advice that can be relied upon and CooperBurnett LLP does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of its contents.
