Though the publishing of the judgment on the high profile legal dispute between Kyle Walker and Lauryn Goodman may appear to act primarily as a piece of celebrity gossip, we at Brighton & Hove Law think this published judgment also provides an interesting opportunity to examine the proceedings from a legal perspective.
As we have discussed previously, the need for transparency in the family court is a frequently addressed issue, which appears to have been emphasised in the publishing of the unredacted family court judgment in relation to Kyle Walker, Premier League footballer and England vice-captain. Under the family court transparency pilot, introduced at Central Family Court earlier this year, it is now acceptable for journalists to attend the hearing in a bid to push transparency in private proceedings amidst concerns by the public as to the happenings in family court. In Walker this was addressed, as it appears at least three requests were made by journalists to attend the hearing, which, considering the celebrity status of the parties involved, is unsurprising. It was also pushed for by Lawyers for Associated Newspapers, who essentially argued that the parties, as celebrity figures, were already experiencing media attention on the proceedings. As His Honour Judge Edward Hess outlined in the judgment, it is also important that transparency be prioritised as, ‘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’ than anonymity. Perhaps, one could argue, it is beneficial in terms of providing an independent report of the proceedings in such high-profile disputes, as the spread of potential misinformation or biased reporting is of a higher likelihood. It is, therefore, a positive step towards encouraging the further publishing of family court proceedings and will likely be one of many more to come.
In terms of the actual law, the financial remedy proceedings were primarily concerned with an application by an unmarried parent under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. This involves ensuring there is sufficient financial provision for the child of the parties involved. Though it is a misconception that this primarily assists wealthier individuals, it can be useful for parents who are left at a disadvantage in comparison with the other parents higher resources. This is due to the fact that provision can cover housing and equipping the home, payments for cars and education, or maintenance where one parent is a higher earner. One of the challenges can be, however, alongside the often long and protracted proceedings, that as it often does concern wealthier families there does not seem to be guidance for most of the population.
The judgment is also interesting for anyone unsure as to how the family court addresses behaviour, as it is made clear that the proceedings are singularly interested in the wellbeing of the child and ensuring provision for said child, rather than the behaviour of the parents. At Brighton & Hove Law, we are committed to prioritising the wellbeing of the child and working with our clients to ensure that all parties are working towards the same goal of sufficient provisions. We also aim to avoid protracted, drawn out proceedings where possible. For any questions on this matter, or for how we can help you if you believe you are in a similar circumstance, please get in touch with us.
