WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ U, 0d UBV % U, U6 B) DC) AMl U* . Bv~.v D3 0@ AOA 0D D/K BzU!3|x;($ '(Ӏ)E*D+,E-./D0Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial $ !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#X August22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk  dPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#  ݛ       \RA'\\RA'\7/XXdd7р@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION NATHANIELBOWERMAN,JR.,and )C/ANO.03A019601CV00012BRIDGETCHADWICK,EXREL., )      )HAMILTONLAWONBEHALFOF    )      )HON.WILLIAML.BROWN,ADAMMICHAELBOWERMAN,  )JUDGE̜L"$!;+'h|`  `LߛD.O.B.6584    )      ) PlaintiffsAppellants, )      )v.      )      )NATHANIELBOWERMAN,SR.,and )LOUISEBOWERMAN,   )AFFIRMED      )AND DefendantsAppellees. )REMANDED̛̜S.DAWNCOPPOCK,StrawberryPlains,forPlaintiffsAppellants.MARTINJ.LEVITT,LEVITT&LEVITT,Chattanooga,forDefendantsAppellees.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  Inthisaction,NathanielBowerman,Jr.,thenaturalfatherofAdamMichaelBowerman,isseekingcustodyofMichaelandalsoseekstosetasideadecreeofadoptionbydefendants,͜paternalgrandparentsofMichael,enteredonNovember5,1986.  Followinganevidentiaryhearing,theTrialJudgeruledthattheadoptionwasvalidandthatplaintiffhadabandonedthechild.  Plaintiffhasappealed,andraisesthefollowingissues:  A.0 Werethebirthparentsrightsproperlyterminatedandiftheywerenotcanavalidadoptionbebasedonfraudulentorinvalidterminationofparentalrights?0 0 B.0 Basedupontheparticularfactsofthiscase,wastherealegalabandonment?0 0 C.0 Iftherehasbeennovalidadoptionandnoabandonment,cananonparentdepriveafitparentofcustodyofhischild.  Wedonotreachtheseissuesbecausethisactionisessentiallyacollateralattackonanadoptiondecree.  TherecordrevealsthatonJuly7,1986,apetitionofadoptionwasfiledintheCircuitCourtofHamiltonCountyϜstyled: NathanialBowerman,Sr.,andLouiseBowerman,naturalgrandparents,andNathanialBowerman,Jr.,naturalfather,petitioners .Thepetitionshowsthatitwassignedbyallthreeparties.Atthetrialofthiscause,NathanialBowerman,Jr.,testifiedthathehadneversignedasurrenderdocument,norsignedanypapersinconnectionwiththisadoption,andthathewasnotawareoftheadoptionuntilsometimein1993.ThereisevidenceintherecordthathewasinChattanoogaathisparentshomeinJuneof1986,andthereistestimonythathewenttotheofficeofthelawyerwhohandledtheadoptiontoϜsignpaperspertainingtotheadoption.  TheTrialCourt,inmakinghisfindings,commentedthatsomeoftheplaintiffstestimonywas ludicrous andheaccreditedthedefendantstestimonymadewithoutobjectionthatplaintiffjoinedinandwasagreeabletotheadoption,thathetoldMr.Epsteinthechildwasnthis,andwhatevertheydidwasϜ ok. 𛀜TheCourtspecificallyfoundthatplaintiffknewoftheadoptionandacquiescedintheadoption,andconcludedbysayingthathefound thecredibilityofthewitnessesinconflictandthetestimonyweighheavilyinfavorofMr.andMrs.Bowerman...andagainstthecredibilityofNathanBowerman,Jr.   Plaintiffinsistsonappealthattheadoptionisinvalidbecausehedidnotlegallysurrenderthechildtohisparents,norwerehisparentalrightsterminatedinajudicialproceeding.CitingNalev.Robertson,871S.W.2d674(Tenn..1994).PlaintiffsrelianceonNaleismisplaced.Thisjurisdictionhaslongheldinadoptioncases,ifthenaturalparentisbeforetheCourt,eithervoluntarilyorbypersonalservice,theCourthasjurisdictionoftheadoptionproceeding,regardlessofwhethertheparenthaslegallysurrenderedthechildforadoption.Youngv.Smith,etal.,191Tenn.25(1950).GiventheTrialCourtsassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theevidencepreponderatesthatplaintiffknewoftheadoptionproceedingandjoinedtherein,andtheadoptiondecreeisresjudicataastothisissue.  Theplaintiffcitesseveralallegedirregularitiesintheadoptionproceedings,includingtheinsistencethatthenaturalmotherssurrenderdidnotcomportwithTennesseelaw.  Thepertinentstatuteinforceatthetimeofthisadoptionprovides:0 0 T.C.A.361127.Bindingeffectofadoption. (a)Whenachildisadoptedpursuanttotheprovisionsofthispart,theadoptiveparentsshallnotthereafterbedeprivedofanyrightsinthechild,attheinsistenceofthenaturalparentsorotherwise,exceptinthesamemannerandforthesamecausesasareapplicableinproceedingstodeprivenaturalparentsofthechildren.0 0  (b)Afterthefinalorderofadoptionissigned,nopartytoanadoptionproceeding,noranyoneclaimingundersuchaparty,maylaterquestionthevalidityoftheadoptionproceedingbyreasonofanydefectorirregularitytherein,jurisdictionalorotherwise,butshallbefullyboundthereby,saveforsuchappealasmaybeallowedbylaw....Whilestrictcompliancewiththeadoptionstatuteisrequiredincontextofappellatereviewoftheactionsoflowercourts,wesaidinBrownv.Raines,611S.W.2d594(Tenn.App.1980):0 0 Thisrequirementdoesnotapply,however,whenafinaldecreeofadoption,nolongersubjecttoappeal,isattackedeithercollaterallyorbyanindependentactioninequityforrelieffromajudgment.Inthissituation,theprovisionsofT.C.A.36127apply:0 0 0  AfterthefinalorderofadoptionisϜsigned,nopartytoanadoptionproceeding,noranyoneclaimingundersuchaparty,maylaterquestionthevalidityoftheadoptionproceedingbyreasonofanydefectorirregularitytherein,jurisdictionalorotherwise,butshallbefullyboundthereby,saveforsuchappealasmaybeallowedbylaw.   ...0 0  Thesameresulthasbeenreachedincasesantedatingthestatute.Underpriorcaselawanindependentorcollateralattackonafinaldecreeofadoptioncouldbemaintainedonlyuponashowingthatthecourtrenderingthedecreelackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction...ThusundereitherT.C.A.36127orpriorcaselaw,theappellantasapartytotheoriginalproceedingsisnowforeclosedfromclaimingthattheadoptionisvoidbecauseofthefailuretocomplywiththesurrenderrequirement.P.596.  Weholdthatplaintiffisprecludedfromraisingtheseissuesinhiscollateralattackontheadoptiondecree.  Finally,thereisapublicpolicyissuetotakeintoaccount,asmentionedinBrown.TheTrialCourtfoundthatϜplaintiffwasawareoftheadoption,acquiescedtherein,yetthisactionwasnotfileduntilMarch27,1995.InBrownwesaiditwasdifficulttopinpointtheexacttimewhenacollateralattackshouldbefiled.However,weheldinthatcasethatsevenyearswastoolong.Inthiscase,theactionwasbroughtafternineyears,andforthisreasonalonetheattackontheadoptiondecreewouldbedisallowed.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthecauseremandedatappellantscost.̜      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:̜___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.