Opinion ID: 1369253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: does appellant have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the oklahoma adoption statutes?

Text: Standing is the legal right of a person to challenge the conduct of another in a judicial forum. [6] The United States Supreme Court has stated: When standing is placed in issue in a case, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged, is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. [7] As this court has stated: `Standing' is the right to commence litigation, to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by a court or jury. [8] When standing of a party is brought into issue, the focus is on the party seeking to get his complaint before the court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. [9] On review, of the trial court's ruling on the appellant's standing, it is not necessary to decide whether appellant will ultimately be entitled to any relief but whether he has the legal right to seek judicial redress for his grievance. The proper inquiry concerning standing is whether the defendant has in fact suffered injury to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. [10] In his amended petition, appellant alleged inter alia, that he is the natural father of Baby Boy D, that a final decree of adoption has been entered for Baby Boy D, and that the relinquishment and adoption of the child by maternal consent alone as authorized by 10 O.S. §§ 60.5(2) and 10 O.S. § 29(2)(g) violated his rights of due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. As a matter of law, his legal rights and interest in his newborn child were terminated by the adoption proceeding if the adoption is allowed to stand. He alleges that this liberty interest has been denied without due process of law. Focusing our consideration on the appellant and the allegations in his petition, we find that he has standing to challenge the adoption statutes of this state on the basis of his allegations that he was denied his liberty interest in his son.