In Dent v. Wolf, B278951 (Sept. 12, 2017), 2/8 decided an interesting standing issue in the context of a paternity case. The 69-year-old plaintiff petitioned to establish a parental relationship with a putative father who had passed away back in 1985, with final judgment on his estate being entered in 1993. In the trial court, administrator Wolf succeeded in having the petition dismissed on the asserted ground "that the Petition presents no justi[c]iable controversy as it seeks only an Order determining paternity with no request for any payments of any kind." Wolf argued Dent had not suffered injury but merely sought "to invoke the judicial process for apparently personal reasons." The Court of Appeal reversed, explaining Family Code 7360 identifies those with standing, specifically including the child; there was no added requirement the "child express a pecuniary interest as a condition of the paternity suit," nor was there an age limitation. It would seem self-evident the purpose of a paternity action is to establish paternity, any consequences which may or may not flow from that being irrelevant to the standing question. "Personal reasons" are the primary purpose of a paternity action, the Court noting, "The interest in identifying her father is independent of a claim for financial remuneration, affords her standing, and demonstrates a justiciable controversy." So, occasionally in the law, truth is its own reward, or at least it is sufficient to confer standing. For the opinion: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B278951.PDF
