DePriest v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 754, 761, 537 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2000). Exceptions to the standing rule only apply to certain challenges under the First Amendment, and where “ ‘individuals not parties to a particular suit stand to lose by its outcome and yet have no effective avenue of preserving their rights themselves.’ ” Tucek v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 613, 617 n. 3, 606 S.E.2d 537, 539 n. 3 (2004) (quoting DePriest, 33 Va.App. at 762, 537 S.E.2d at 4). Grandmother did not have any legal right to assert that mother's parental rights should not be terminated. Parental rights to A.O. only belonged to mother and the biological father.

"Because the very ‘nature of judicial review constrains us to consider the case that is actually before us,’ " we decline to decide this case by offering an advisory opinion. Tucek v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 613, 616, 606 S.E.2d 537 (2004) (quoting Boyd v. Cty. of Henrico, 42 Va. App. 495, 520, 592 S.E.2d 768 (2004) (en banc )). See also Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 2445–46, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995).

Exceptions to the standing rule only apply to certain challenges under the First Amendment "and to situations involving the most 'weighty, countervailing policies' like, for example, where 'individuals not parties to a particular suit stand to lose by its outcome and yet have no effective avenue of preserving their rights themselves.'" Tucek v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 613, 617 n.3 (2004) (quoting DePriest v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 754, 762 (2000)). Appellant's challenge does not fall under these exceptions.

That the statute may apply unconstitutionally to another is irrelevant; one cannot raise third party rights."Tucek v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 613, 617, 606 S.E.2d 537, 539 (2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Williams, 553 U.S. at 304 (noting in the absence of a First Amendment overbreadth challenge, a "plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others"); Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 501, 619 S.E.2d 16, 44 (2005); Commonwealth v. Hicks, 267 Va. 573, 580, 596 S.E.2d 74, 78 (2004); Tjan v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 698, 709, 621 S.E.2d 669, 674 (2005);Singson v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 724, 734-35, 621 S.E.2d 682, 686-87 (2005).