Court Opinion

ID: 9748920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:17:41.923326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.675459
License: Public Domain

CUNNINGHAM, J.,
Dissenting:
I decline to vote in favor of the bright line rule that a party must “use or lose” the claim of lack of standing at the trial level. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
With an ever increasing number of pro se litigants, especially in the area of family law, I fear what might befall from our holding here today. Humble and oft times uneducated parents representing themselves in their flawed efforts to keep their children should not be expected to possess the legal prowess of a learned lawyer. They should not be required to pay for their failure to raise standing at trial with the possible loss of their children. In those instances, at least, appellate courts must maintain some ability to level the playing field.
Finally, I note in passing that our decision here today is at odds with that reached by the United States Supreme Court in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004). That was the “pledge of allegiance” case that was jettisoned by our nation’s highest court on lack of standing without ever reaching the merits of the dispute. Standing had not been raised at the trial level.
SCOTT, J., joins.