as standing, for the proposition that the Superior Court may issue declaratory judgments regarding paternity so long as there is a justiciable claim, but without addressing the question of primary jurisdiction presented in this case. On this point, we agree with the District of Columbia. In determining whether an action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding paternity is justiciable or whether it would be an “abstract, hypothetical or contingent question” over which the trial court would lack jurisdiction, In re D.M., 562 A.2d at 620 (quoting Pauling v. Eastland, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 342, 344, 288 F.2d 126, 128 (1960)), some reason must be stated to render the judicial determination more than a mere advisory opinion. See id. (quoting Smith v. Smith, 310 A.2d 229, 231 (D.C.1973) (<HOLDING>)). Alleging entitlement to tangible benefits
holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding that appellant did not have a justiciable claim since she had alleged no reason for seeking the determination that appellee was her natural father holding that where appellant alleged she had not been properly represented and that counsel told her she could change her mind about plea until the very last minute trial court should have conducted sheppard hearing holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony