Court Opinion

ID: 9641034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:21:31.557152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.615997
License: Public Domain

RUIZ, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I think this ease should be dismissed for lack of justiciability. The case is not justicia-ble now and it was not justiciable when the trial court considered it, after the divorce action and counterclaim had been dismissed. “Although this court is not governed by standing requirements under Article III of the Constitution, we look to federal jurisprudence to define the limits of ‘[c]ases and controversies’ that our enabling statute enables us to hear.” Community Credit Union v. Federal Express Servs. Corp., 534 A.2d 331, 333 (D.C.1987) (quoting D.C.Code § 11-705(b) (1981)). “[Declaratory judgment authority does not supersede the rules of justiciability.” Smith v. Smith, 310 A.2d 229, 231 (D.C.1973).
*505There is no denying that the parties have a history of heated controversy over the issue of appellant’s paternity of the appellee’s minor children. However, even construing appellant’s request for a declaration of his entitlement to mandatory HLA/DNA blood testing as a request for a declaration of his paternity, there currently is no legal proceeding that would be affected by such a declaration nor has appellant provided “any indication of the immediacy or reason such a declaration is required.” In re D.M., 562 A.2d 618, 621 (D.C.1989). Because there is no “presently articulated need for a declaration,” id., the court is being asked to issue an advisory opinion, without the context that judicial prudence requires for sound decision-making.
Nor is judicial efficiency served by addressing the issue at this stage. To the contrary, appellant’s complaint for declaratory relief states that “[ajnother action for divorce and/or annulment of the parties’ marriage is inevitable, as is relitigation of the issue of Plaintiffs entitlement to HLA/DNA testing.” Thus, nothing in the record before us suggests that deciding the issue now will avoid or lessen further litigation. Given the past history of litigation between the parties and the promise of more to come, we are being asked to rule in the most inefficient maimer, bypassing the usual rules against piecemeal interlocutory review of discovery rulings by the trial court. I decline the invitation.