Support truly
independent journalism
Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.
Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.
Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.
Lauryn Goodman was slammed by a judge for “exaggerating her need for money” during a family court showdown with Manchester City footballer Kyle Walker.
The England vice-captain was embroiled in a legal battle with the 33-year-old model, which saw a number of outlandish childcare requests, including a £33,000 air conditioning unit and £31,000 astro turf, denied by the judge.
Walker, 34, who is married with four children, was booted out of his £3.5million Cheshire mansion by his wife after he fathered a daughter with Ms Goodman four years after they had a son together.
In the ruling delivered today, Ms Goodman was accused by the judge of cashing in on the betrayal of Mr Walker’s wife.
A 30-page document laid bare a series of shopping sprees and demands after another judge previously accused her of spending money “like it was going out of fashion”.
Speaking about Ms Goodman’s long list of expensive demands, Walker insisted payment demands would “not have got this far” if he was a “painter and decorator”.
“A pound is a pound, and let’s not be flippant that because I earn the amount of money that I earn, which I have done off my own back, you can just spend money and have an open chequebook,” he told the Central Family Court in London.
“I do feel that because of who I am and what I do, and the money that I have, you are taking well out of consideration what is actually needed. If I was a painter and decorator, I don’t think we would have got this far.”
Another issue Ms Goodman had was with her patio, which she said was ‘unsafe’ and requested a £31,000 astro turf instead.
She told the court that her one-year-old daughter Kinara needed the pitch as she had managed to kick a football recently so could well become a Lioness.
Ms Goodman also said she needed a cleaner because the house has a huge glass staircase and giant windows.
Within 48 hours of giving birth, Ms Goodman made a ‘financial remedies application’ asking for maintenance, already at £110,000 per year for their son, to be increased to £177,000.
It saw the England star agree to buy her a £2.4million Sussex property and spend over £120,000 on walk-in wardrobes, blinds and curtains, sofas and garden furniture.
The court heard that Mr Walker, 34, had seen Kairo four times and Kinara once, with Judge Edward Hess stating in his ruling that Ms Goodman “wished the relationship to develop further than it has”.
He added that Mr Walker’s decision to “draw a line” under their relationship in favour of focusing on his marriage was a “source of disappointment, anguish and anger” for Ms Goodman.
In her evidence, Ms Goodman said she did not want her children to be “different” from Mr Walker’s children with his wife and that the money was to “secure my children’s future”.
She said: “He (Mr Walker) has formed a bond with Kairo, who is now sat there asking for his dad. The whole thing is just horrendous.”
She added: “I would do anything for my child. If that meant that the father of my child would have a relationship with my child, I would facilitate that.”
Mr Walker was described as was “sensible, honest and reliable” in the court dealings, the judge said.
In his ruling, Judge Hess dismissed many of Ms Goodman’s demands, concluding that she was “not reliable” while claiming Mr Walker “acted with dignity and generosity”.
He said: “Plainly, he (Mr Walker) was embarrassed and remorseful as to the difficult situation in which he has placed a number of people, including all of his children, and regretted his decision-making in trying to keep his paternity of Kinara a secret.
“But he has in my view acted with dignity and generosity, and, once the secret was out, honesty, in facing up to the financial and personal consequences of what happened.
“In contrast, my assessment of the mother is that she was not reliable, often said what she thought would help her case rather than what was true, failed to make a calm and measured assessment of what she needed and often exaggerated her need to spend money.”
