ground for standing. Given that he did not allege this ground in his pleadings, it will not support standing. See H.G., 267 S.W.3d at 123. 3 . J.P.K. did not challenge the inapplicability of the parental presumption in modification actions on constitutional grounds. He did not raise any constitutional issues, either below or in this court, on this issue. Rather, he relies on the statutory scheme in the Texas Family Code, arguing this is an original action, not a modification. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for this court to address the possible constitutional issues relevant to the parental presumption’s absence from Chapter 156 of the Family Code because we are not permitted to consider unassigned error. See Western Steel Co. v. Altenburg, 206 S.W.3d 121, 124 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>); Allright, Inc. v. Pearson, 735 S.W.2d 240,
holding an appellate court cannot reverse a trial courts judgment absent properly assigned error holding that an appellate court may not review errors that have not been assigned by a party or a point of error holding that absent rare fundamental error appellate court should refrain from deciding cases on legal errors not assigned by parties holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding errors which are argued but not assigned will not be considered by appellate court