Newdow

Order by Judge GOODWIN; Concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ.

ORDER

After we issued our June 26, 2002 opinion in this case, Sandra Banning, the mother of Michael Newdow’s daughter, filed a motion for leave to intervene, in order to, inter alia, challenge Newdow’s standing to *502 maintain this action. Banning attached to her motion as an exhibit a copy of a February 6, 2002 California Superior Court custody order. That order awarded Banning “sole legal custody” of the child. We have carefully reconsidered the question of Newdow’s Article III standing in light of this custody order and affirm our holding that he has standing as a parent to continue to pursue his claim in federal court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

When this case first reached us from the district court, no legal custody question or order had been disclosed to the federal courts. Newdow had alleged in the district court that he was the father, and had custody of the minor child. The record now indicates that Newdow and Banning formed a family consisting of an unmarried man, an unmarried woman, and their biological minor child, who lived together part of the time and lived in separate homes in Florida and…

concurring:

I concur in the order, but write separately to emphasize that in this order we decide that Newdow’s legal status under *506 California law vis-a-vis his daughter does not deprive him of standing. Despite the order’s allusions to the merits of the controversy, we decide nothing but that narrow standing issue. 1 Leastwise, I join nothing other than the narrow decision that the orders of the California courts have not deprived Newdow of standing.

. For my view on the merits question, see Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597 , 612-15 (9th Cir.2002) (Fernandez, J., concurring and dissenting.)