This is a guest post from Anna Yarde. Anna is a barrister at Harcourt Chambers.
Lauryn Goodman v Kyle Andrew Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B)
This is a case about an influencer, a famous footballer, infidelity and lavish spending.
It is also a case about transparency and privacy. What should the newspapers be allowed to publish? How are the children’s best interests weighed in the balance? Should the press be allowed to identify the parties? And what can we learn from HHJ Edward Hess’ approach to transparency?
Who’s who? And what were they arguing about?
Lauryn Goodman is the mother in this case. She is an influencer/celebrity. She is Kairo and Kinara’s primary carer. Kairo is four years old, and Kinara is one.
Kyle Walker is Kairo and Kinara’s father. He plays football for Manchester City, and he is the Vice-Captain of the England team. He is married and has another four children with his wife.
Kairo and Kinara’s parents have never lived together, and their relationship has been the subject of social media speculation and press reporting.
The legal case was about money. Lauryn Goodman applied to the Court for financial provision from Kyle Walker for their youngest child, Kinara. She already had an order for provision for Kairo. These are called Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 proceedings.
The Judge had to decide what was reasonable financial provision for Kinara, given Mr Walker’s current resources and standard of living. This means looking at the income, earning capacity, resources and needs of the parents and child.
Transparency: the principles
Two important rules apply to the publication of information about proceedings for financial provision for children (Schedule 1 proceedings):
The Administration of Justice Act 1960 prevents the publication of any information relating to the proceedings.
The Children Act 1989, section 97(2) prevents the publication of any material likely to identify a child involved in proceedings.
However, the Court can decide whether to make an exception to those rules. HHJ Hess explained the task as a balancing of the Article 8 and Article 10 rights of those involved (that means the right to a private and family life, balanced against the right to freedom of expression), thinking carefully about whether there are good reasons for interfering in those rights and whether it is proportionate to do so (see Goodman v Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B), paragraph 89). It is easy to see how one person’s right to a family life can come into conflict with another person’s right to hold their own opinions and express them freely.
How important are the children’s interests? HHJ Hess described them as “a primary, but not a paramount consideration” (Goodman, para 89). That means that what is best for the children is important, but it does not determine the Court’s decision.
The Judge also considered the general guidance on transparency in the family courts and referred to:
Confidence and Confidentiality in the Family Courts, 28th October 2021; and
The specific guidance in relation to financial remedies proceedings (see The Transparency Reporting Pilot for Financial Remedy Proceedings: Guidance from the President, 15 December 2023). This case was heard at the Central Family Court, where the pilot was running.
Everyone agreed that the press should not publish addresses, bank account details or any photographs showing the children’s faces.
Transparency: the arguments
The Court heard arguments from the media as well as both parties about what information about these proceedings should be published. Their positions can be summarised as follows:
- Associated Newspapers asked the Court to allow the newspapers to publish (with a few targeted exceptions) information about the proceedings, including the Judgment, in full and without any details or names removed (Goodman para 86).
- Ms Goodman’s representative asked for an almost complete prohibition on the publication of information about the proceedings. Any published Judgment should remove names and details so that the parties could not be identified (Goodman para 87).
- Mr Walker’s lawyer agreed with the media (Goodman para 86).
How did they argue those positions?
Ms Goodman argued that the children’s privacy should be protected and that should “dominate all other considerations” (Goodman para 92).
The media’s case was quoted in the Judgment. Associated Newspapers said:
- The parties are well-known celebrity figures.
- There has already been substantial reporting of the long-running dispute.
- Much of the reporting has been the result of one or both parties themselves putting information into the public domain.
- Given the information already in the public domain, it would be artificial to suggest that the parents could not be identified if there was reporting on an anonymised basis.
- Ms Goodman had repeatedly placed in the public domain (both via the media and her own social media profile) images, video and audio of the children, together with statements about their paternity and Mr Walker’s marriage.
- In those circumstances, the Article 8 rights (to a private and family life) are of limited weight.
- There is no reason to believe that the reporting of these financial remedy proceedings will cause further detriment to the welfare of the parties’ children (Goodman para 93).
The decision
The Judge agreed with the media, saying:
“It would be a nonsense, opening the court to ridicule, to try to redact or anonymise this judgment to prevent identification of the parties. Further, a perusal of the many hundreds of newspaper articles published about these matters clearly illustrates that the mother has not just cooperated with, but actively instigated, press coverage placing in the public domain her own children, the circumstances of their conceptions and what she thinks about the father. It sits ill for a person to come to court arguing for privacy for her children when, just a very short while earlier, she took a payment from the press to visit the European football championship with her son dressed in an England football shirt with the name ‘Daddy’ on the back, and to be willingly photographed doing this to provide journalistic fodder which the newspapers were only too happy to use. If the children suffer any harm from the publicity of these matters, it has already happened, and it will largely be the result of the mother’s own decisions and actions. For me, on the facts of this case, the balancing exercise must come down against the mother’s argument. For me, 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.” (Goodman para 94)
To put it simply, Ms Goodman could not sensibly choose to put information about her children, their paternity and her views about the father in the public domain (and take payment to provide “journalistic fodder”) whilst asking the Court to keep it private. She cannot rely on possible, future detriment to her children caused by publication because the harm has already happened. And it has happened because of the information she has shared and the choices she has made.
HHJ Hess considered the issue of naming the children separately. He noted that the four children of the Mr Walker’s marriage are frequently named by the press, as is the name of Kinara’s brother, Kairo. The Judge noted that Ms Goodman often wears a necklace bearing the initials “KW”, although this could refer to either child or indeed Mr Walker. HHJ Hess could not see the benefit of trying to impose restrictions to prevent the names of five children already widely known or just Kinara’s name when the others were already known.
On the issue of transparency, HHJ Hess’ final concern was that it was likely that Ms Goodman would be tempted to seek “defiantly” to make public her views about the Court’s findings and any views she holds about the father. In those circumstances, it is “preferable that anybody interested in the topic should have the opportunity to read the full independent account contained in this judgment before reaching any conclusions about what has happened” (Goodman para 95).
How the decision might apply to future cases
Firstly, it is important to remember that each case will be determined on its own facts. It is also important to remember that this case is unique because of the parties’ celebrity status and existing media interest.
But that doesn’t mean that the arguments have no relevance. Here are some points that may be worth considering carefully for future cases:
- What is the likely harm that could be caused by publication of information about the proceedings?
- Could there be any benefit in publication of a full Judgment (for example, to ensure that there is an independent, full account made available)? How might that be relevant to a child’s welfare?
- What information about the family is already available online? Has either party shared views about the behaviour or relationships of the other party? Has either party used Facebook or Twitter to post updates or share images? Are there any YouTube videos depicting the family and children? Have names and locations been published?
- Has either party sought to actively engage in media coverage of their family or their story?
HHJ Hess described it as “quite rare” for a judge in a financial remedies case, in particular a Children Act, Schedule 1 case to reach a clear conclusion that the normal confidentiality restrictions should be dispensed with, and that the Judgment should be published without anonymisation (Goodman para 93).
But that does not mean that it will always be rare. In his 18th View from the President’s Chambers, Sir James Munby said,
“The delivery of substantive justice will be improved by an improved programme of judicial training; by the reporting of judgments in small and medium cases by the judges of the FRC to promote transparency and consistency; and by ensuring that sufficient time is allowed for the preparation and conduct of final hearings. An increase in transparency will result in increased predictability of outcome, which in turn should lead to a higher rate of settlement or, for those cases that do not settle, a reduced rate of appeals.”
([2018] Fam Law 156)
So perhaps, although rare at present, it ought not be expected that reporting of financial remedies cases will only be limited to the “big money”, celebrity cases in future. Lawyers will need to consider how the balancing exercises might be conducted in all their cases if the Judge is asked to consider transparency and reporting issues.