The court handed down judgement last week in the case of Goodman v Walker. Mr Walker is a high-profile professional footballer and has four children with his wife (not part of the case) and two children with Ms Goodman, born as a result of an affair. Ms Goodman made a financial application under the Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 in relation to their youngest child. This legislation is available to unmarried parents where there is a high earner to enable them to claim financial provision for children.

Financial proceedings in relation to the parties first child concluded in 2022, where amongst other things, Mr Walker was ordered to purchase a property for Ms Goodman and their child to occupy, child maintenance to Ms Goodman of £8k per month, a lump sum towards her debts and to provide a replacement car for her every four years from March 2025.

Ms Goodman’s latest application sought to build on the previous proceedings in relation to the second child. On disputed areas between the parties, the judge disagreed with Ms Goodman seeking to remove the provision in the 2022 order for a ‘protected housing budget,’ noting that the reason it was put in place originally still exists ie the threat of Ms Goodman moving her home close to Mr Walker’s family home. The judge also disagreed that the installation of an air conditioning system costing £33,000 was necessary in an English home and further, that installation of an astroturf costing £31,200 was necessary for their one-year-old child, who Ms Goodman believes has shown enough talent to eventually have a career as a professional footballer. The judge pointed out that their child is not even walking. He did however agree to Mr Walker having to pay £5,000 for home furniture, specifically targeted at their second child’s needs and agreed that Mr Walker pay £12,000 to buy a suitable car for their children’s nanny.

Ms Goodman was also seeking a global figure for child maintenance for both of their children at a rate of £14,750 per month but Mr Walker suggested the figure should be £12,500. The judge agreed with him though made a point that some may say it is still a generous amount.

A final transparency order was also made, which is quite rare in these cases. The judge agreed with Associated Newspapers’ that if identification of the parties was kept anonymous, it would open the court to ridicule given the significant press interest and reporting so far.

Though the judge disagreed with many of Ms Goodman’s requests, this case is a reminder that where children are born to unmarried parents, the father can still be liable to pay substantial costs for the maintenance of children, whatever the circumstances.

BDB Pitmans have extensive experience in advising unmarried parents on potential financial claims that could be made. We would be happy to help with any questions you may have. Please get in contact with our family and matrimonial team to find out more.