ÿWPCLg …# VUNa %¯ 0 Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , ; m= 0DT ˜ 0J  0Tê 0^> 0hœ B 0r! 0|“ 0† • † 0# 0@³ D3ó 1u& 0d›U\>ÿB)=DCf AM©U*ö/ ªOùŽÅŸd|À—ÛW!e2$f—&wý*0t-A¤.¸å2³;óP?CBdWC‰»D+DG¡oJ|N¨ŒQ%4V%YW~XŽ…YC\v~V^vÓÔ_ AO§eÆöe 0D¼f D/g B/g˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2‰þ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xå5X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- —™š›DœDžŸD Ó€ªDÒ x3|xªÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôevans v. steelman - dissent (Cantrell) Ì  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd#&')/ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d>>>>7Border 1dd€1?Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€AÔÔ€AÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€AXÔÌÌOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Mr.€Evans€stated€in€a€brief€filed€in€the€juvenile€court€that€his€relationship€with€Ms.ÏSteelman€began€in€1991.€€The€record€contains€no€evidentiary€substantiation€for€this€assertion.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý2€Roscoe€Pound,€òòJurisprudenceóó€166€(1959).Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò¢J.T.£€¢Fargason£€Co.€v.€Ball,óó€128€Tenn.€137,€141,€159€¢S.W.£€221,€222€(1913);€O.W.ÏHolmes,€òòThe€Path€of€the€Law,óó€10€¢Harv£.€L.€Rev.€457,€460„61€(1897).€€Ì »Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDean€Pound€explained€the€relationship€between€the€legal€principles€and€the€techniquesÏused€to€decide€cases€as€follows:€ð ðThe€body€of€precepts€gets€its€whole€life€from€the€technique€ofÏdeveloping€and€applying€them;€and€that€technique€gets€its€color€and€its€direction,€and€theÏprecepts€themselves€get€their€shape€and€content€for€the€time€being€from€the€traditional€ideas€orÏcurrent€professional€ideas€as€to€the€end€of€law.ðð€€1€Roscoe€Pound,€òòJurisprudenceóó€73€(1959).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòShay€v.€Harper,óó€202€Tenn.€141,€151,€303€¢S.W.2d£€335,€340€(1957)€(distinguish€priorÏdecisions€to€avoid€injustice);€òòGriffitts€v.€Humphrey,óó€199€Tenn.€528,€532,€288€¢S.W.2d£€1,€3Ï(1955)€(courts€must€make€a€clear€distinction€when€an€earlier€decision€cannot€be€ð ðsidesteppedÏvery€gentlyðð).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRigid€reliance€on€the€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€can€confound€the€truth€and€foster€anÏattitude€of€contempt€for€the€law.€€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£,óó€833€¢S.W.2d£€at€56;€òò¢Dupuis£€v.€Hand,óóÏ814€¢S.W.2d£€at€345;€òòHanover€v.€¢Ruch£,óó€809€¢S.W.2d£€at€898;€òòDavis€v.€Davis,óó€657€¢S.W.2d£€atÏ758.Ì ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€also€declined€to€review€the€decision€even€thoughÏJustices€White€and€Blackmun€would€have€noted€probable€jurisdiction.€€òòCunningham€v.ÏGolden,óó€466€U.S.€966,€104€S.€Ct.€2336€(1984).Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›I€can€find€no€reliable€indication€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€intended€to€limit€itsÏcomments€concerning€the€significance€œof€a›€simple€denial€of€an€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€to€multi„issue€cases.€€In€fact,€just€the€contrary€seems€to€be€the€case.€€œSee,€for€example,ÏòòSwift›€v.€Kirbyóó,€737€S.W.2d€at€œ274,›€in€which€the€sole€issue€was€the€correctness€of€this€court'sÏdecision€in€an€earlier€case€that€the€"equity€of€redemption"€did€not€include€the€statutory€right€ofÏredemption.œÌ [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€General€Assemblyððs€reasons€for€creating€this€judicial€remedy€were€clearlyÏreflected€in€the€billððs€preamble€which€stated€that€ð ðthe€frequent€applications€to€this€GeneralÏAssembly,€have€become€troublesome,€and€have€a€tendency€to€expose€the€morals€of€society,Ïand€unnecessarily€¢put£€the€State€to€considerable€expence€for€public€printing,€and€time€of€theÏLegislature.ððÌ \Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€7€provided:Ìà8 àà àThe€Legislature€shall€have€no€power€to€suspend€any€general€law€for€theÏbenefit€of€any€particular€individual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€for€the€benefits€ofÏindividuals€inconsistent€with€the€general€laws€of€the€land;€nor€to€pass€any€lawÏgranting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,€rights,€privileges,€immunities,€orÏexemptions,€other€than€such€as€may€be,€by€the€same€law,€extended€to€anyÏmember€of€the€community,€who€may€be€able€to€bring€himself€within€theÏprovisions€of€such€law:€€òòprovidedóó€always,€the€Legislature€shall€have€power€toÏgrant€such€charters€of€incorporation€as€they€may€deem€expedient€for€the€publicÏgood.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€court€later€noted€that€this€provision€prevented€the€GeneralÏAssembly€from€passing€private€laws€legitimating€particular€individuals.€€òòSwanson€v.€Swansonóó,Ï32€Tenn.€(2€Swan)€at€454.Ì mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòCompareóó€Code€of€Tennessee€ðð€3640€(1858)€òòwithóó€Shannonððs€Code€of€Tennessee€ððÏ5406€(1896);€Code€of€Tennessee€ðð€9565€(1932);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„302€(1955).€€TheÏGeneral€Assembly€amended€the€provision€in€1965€to€require€that€the€application€for€legitimationÏinclude€the€state€and€date€of€the€childððs€birth.€€Act€of€Mar.€2,€1965,€ch.€112,€ðð€2,€1965€Tenn.ÏPub.€Acts€418.Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAct€of€Apr.€21,€1994,€ch.€988,€ðð€6,€1994€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€1016,€1019.Ì 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€panel€of€the€Eastern€Section€of€this€court€has€recently€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„2„202(c)€is€unconstitutional€if€interpreted€to€require€maternal€consent€before€a€natural€fatherÏmay€file€an€application€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€to€legitimate€a€child.€€òòIn€re€HoodÏ(Vineyard€v.€Hood),óó€App.€No.€03„A„01„9508„JV„00296,€slip€op.€at€14€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€JuneÏ10,€1996)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€While€this€analysis€is€fundamentallyÏsound,€the€panel€could€have€avoided€deciding€the€constitutional€question€by€pointing€out€thatÏthe€legislative€history€of€the€maternal€consent€requirement€clearly€demonstrates€that€it€appliesÏonly€to€the€ð ðacknowledgment€of€paternityðð€proceedings€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(b),Ïnot€to€legitimation€petitions€filed€directly€in€court€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a).Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€majority€makes€much€of€the€fact€that€the€General€Assembly€has€not€amendedÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€since€the€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision.€€Citing€òòHamby€v.ÏMcDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774,€776€(Tenn.€1977),€it€asserts€that€this€legislative€inaction€isÏ"persuasive€evidence"€that€the€legislature€approves€of€òòCunningham€v.€Golden'sóó€construction€ofÏ"child€not€born€in€lawful€wedlock."€€While€the€majority€correctly€cites€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,Ïreason€and€common€sense€caution€against€reading€too€much€into€legislative€inaction.ÌÌà àThe€"inaction€doctrine"€relied€on€so€heavily€by€the€majority€has€few€defenders€today.€ÏWilliam€H.€Eskridge,€Jr.,€òòThe€New€Textualismóó,€37€U.C.L.A.€L.€Rev.€621,€640€(1989),Ïòòreprinted€inóó€2A€Norman€J.€Singer,€òòStatutes€and€Statutory€Constructionóó€581€(5th€ed.€1992).€ÏThe€failure€to€enact€legislation€cannot€be€associated€with€any€particular€legislative€initiative€orÏproposal,€and,€as€Justice€Scalia€has€pointed€out,€it€is€"impossible€to€assert€with€any€degree€ofÏassurance€that€.€.€.€[legislative]€failure€to€act€represents€(1)€approval€of€the€status€quo,€asÏopposed€to€(2)€inability€to€agree€upon€how€to€alter€the€status€quo,€(3)€unawareness€of€the€statusÏquo,€(4)€indifference€to€the€status€quo,€or€even€(5)€political€cowardice."€€òòJohnson€v.ÏTransportation€Agencyóó,€480€U.S.€616,€671„72,€107€S.€Ct.€1442,€1472€(1987)€(Scalia,€J.,Ïdissenting).ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly's€decision€to€limit€the€availability€of€the€alternativeÏ"acknowledgment€of€paternity"€procedure€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(b)€to€children€"bornÏto€an€unmarried€woman"€does€not€necessarily€indicate€that€it€intended€the€phrase€"child€bornÏout€of€lawful€wedlock"€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€to€mean€the€same€thing.€€It€isÏequally,€if€not€more,€plausible€that€the€General€Assembly€wished€to€limit€the€availability€of€theÏalternative€procedure€to€only€unmarried€women€in€order€to€protect€the€interests€of€a€marriedÏwoman's€husband.œÌ ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€presumption€that€a€child€born€to€a€married€woman€was€the€offspring€of€theÏmotherððs€husband€has€been€traced€to€òò¢Goodright£€v.€Moss,óó€2€¢Cowp£.€591,€98€Eng.€Rep.€1257Ï(1777),€and€is€commonly€referred€to€as€ð ðLord€Mansfieldððs€Rule.ðð€€It€stems€from€LordÏMansfieldððs€statement€that€ð ðthe€declarations€of€a€father€or€mother,€cannot€be€admitted€toÏbastardize€the€issue€born€after€marriage.ðð€€òò¢Goodright£€v.€Moss,óó€2€¢Cowp£.€at€592,€98€Eng.€Rep.Ïat€1257.€€Despite€its€widespread€acceptance,€Lord€Mansfieldððs€Rule€has€not€escaped€seriousÏacademic€criticism.€€òòSeeóó€7€John€Henry€¢Wigmore£,€òòEvidence€in€Trials€at€Common€Lawóó€ðððð€2063,Ï2064€(James€H.€¢Chadbourn£€rev.€1978).€€Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBureau€of€the€Census,€U.S.€¢Depððt£€of€Commerce,€òòStatistical€Abstract€of€the€UnitedÏStatesóó:€1995,€at€77€(¢115th£€ed.€1995)€(statistics€demonstrating€that€three€of€every€ten€live€birthsÏin€1992€were€to€an€unmarried€woman).€€The€¢nonmarital£€birth€rate€in€Tennessee€has€increasedÏ252%€during€the€past€thirty€years.€€In€1994,€33.4%€of€the€children€born€in€Tennessee€wereÏborn€to€unmarried€mothers.€€Tennessee€¢Commððn£€on€Children€&€Youth,€òòKids€Count:€The€StateÏof€the€Child€in€Tennessee,€1995,óó€at€8€(1996).€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105€(Supp.€1996).Ì ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€34„11„102(a)€(Supp.€1995);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„102Ï(1991);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„203€(1991).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò¢Pickett£€v.€Brown,óó€462€U.S.€1,€18,€103€S.€Ct.€2199,€2209€(1983)€(statute€ofÏlimitations€for€seeking€child€support€from€a€biological€father);€òòGomez€v.€Perez,óó€409€U.S.€535,Ï538,€93€¢S.€Ct£.€872,€875€(1973)€(right€to€child€support€from€a€biological€parent);€òòWeber€v.ÏAetna€Casualty€&€Sur.€Co.,óó€406€U.S.€164,€175„76,€92€S.€Ct.€1400,€1406„07€(1972)€(right€toÏreceive€workerððs€compensation€benefits).Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€reasoning€of€these€decisions€indicate€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏconcluded€that€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€provides€broader€protection€for€the€rights€ofÏbiological€parents€than€does€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Thus,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€not€followed€Justice€Scaliaððs€plurality€opinion€that€unmarried€fathers€do€not€have€aÏconstitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€in€their€relationship€with€their€biological€children€bornÏto€married€mothers.€€òòSeeóó€òòMichael€H.€v.€Gerald€D.,óó€491€U.S.€110,€113„32,€109€S.€Ct.€2333,Ï2337„46€(1989).€€Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSeveral€more€recent€intermediate€appellate€court€decisions€have€characterized€a€relatedÏpresumption€as€conclusive.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢Rooker£€v.€¢Rimer£,óó€776€¢S.W.2d£€124,€128€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1989);€òòTyler€v.€Tyler,óó€671€¢S.W.2d£€492,€494€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€While€the€presumptionÏof€legitimacy€has€been€viewed€as€one€of€the€strongest€known€to€the€law,òò€Anderson€v.ÏAnderson,óó€52€Tenn.€App.€241,€260,€372€¢S.W.2d£€452,€461€(1962),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€never€held€that€it€is€conclusive.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢Pressley£€v.€¢Pressley£,óó€App.€No.€03„A„01„9311„CV„00400,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€10,€1995)€(Susano,€J.,€concurring)€(No€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ì rÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýòò¢K.S.£€v.€R.S.,óó€No.€¢55S04£„9602„CV„00162,€1996€WL€420400,€at€*3€(Ind.€July€29,Ï1996);€òò¢Pursley£€v.€¢Hisch£,óó€85€¢N.E.2d£€270,€271€(Ind.€App.€Ct.€1949);€òòSmith€v.€Robbins,óó€283Ï¢N.W.2d£€725,€729€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1979);€òòIn€re€¢Legitimation€of€Locklear£,óó€334€S.E.2d£€46,€50„51€(N.C.€1985);€òòState€v.€¢Colitonóó£,€17€¢N.W.2d£€546,€551€(N.D.€1945);€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Marriott,óóÏ515€P.2d€571,€573€(Okla.€1973);€òòsee€alsoóó€Unif.€Act€on€Paternity€ðð€1,€¢9B£€¢U.L.A.£€350€(1987);Ïòòbut€seeóó€òò¢Weidenbacher£€v.€¢Duclos£,óó€661€A.2d€988,€992€n.11€(Conn.€1995)€(declining€to€decideÏthe€meaning€of€ð ðchild€born€out€of€wedlockðð).Ì žÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòLeonard€v.€Leonard,óó€360€So.€2d€710,€712€(Ala.€1978);€òò¢Estey£€v.€¢Mawdsley£,€óó217ÏA.2d€493,€494€(Conn.€Cir.€Ct.€1966);€òòWilkins€v.€Georgia€¢Depððt£€of€Human€Resources,óó€337ÏS.E.2d£€20,€22€(Ga.€1985);€òòJohnson€v.€¢Studley£„Preston,óó€812€P.2d€1216,€1219€(Idaho€1991);Ïòò¢K.S.£€v.€R.S.,óó€òòsupraóó€note€21,€at€*3;€òò¢Pursley£€v.€¢Hisch£,óó€85€¢N.E.2d£€at€271;€òòBartlett€v.ÏCommonwealth,óó€705€¢S.W.2d£€€470,€472€(Ky.€1986);€òò¢Spielmaker£€v.€Lee,óó€517€¢N.W.2d£€558,Ï559€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòGirard€v.€¢Wagenmaker£,óó€434€¢N.W.2d£€227,€228€(Mich.€Ct.€App.Ï1988),€òòrev'd€on€other€groundsóó,€470€N.W.2d€372€(1991);€òòState€ex€rel.€¢Madsen£€v.€Soldier,óó€No.ÏA„94„747,€1996€WL€169877,€at€*3€(Neb.€Ct.€App.€April€9,€1996);€òòCommissioner€of€Pub.ÏWelfare€v.€¢Koehler£,óó€30€¢N.E.2d£€587,€589€(N.Y.€1940);€òò¢Batcheldor£€v.€Boyd,óó€423€¢S.E.2d£€810,Ï813€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€¢Coliton£,óó€17€¢N.W.2d£€at€551.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„2„201,€„209€(1991€&€Supp.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„2„101,€„115€(1991€&€Supp.€1995).Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€31„2„105.Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòIn€re€Estate€of€Armstrong€(Adams€v.€Manis),óó€859€¢S.W.2d£€323,€327€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1993)€(finding€no€connection€between€the€legitimation€and€intestate€succession€statutes);ÏòòMatthews€v.€White,óó€App.€No.€02„A„01„9210„JV„00295,€slip€op.€at€4„5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€JulyÏ1,€1993),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Nov.€1,€1993)€(the€purpose€of€the€paternity€statutes€differsÏfrom€the€purpose€of€the€legitimation€statutes).Ì 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€=XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee€alsoóó€òòWebb€v.€Dunlap,óó€App.€No.€03„A„01„9406„JV„00211,€slip€op.€at€4„5€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€Dec.€6,€1994)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed);€òòMatthews€v.€White,óó€òòsupraóóÏnote€26,€slip€op.€at€4;€òòBass€v.€Norman,óó€C.A.€No.€164,€slip€op.€at€4„5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.Ï29,€1989)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€1‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€=ÔÔ€=¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€@¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›à@ àÔ€=„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€=¼ÔÌó óMICHAEL€SCOTT€EVANS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€JuvenileÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€9419„13267ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„JV„00508ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€@B?;+'h|Ä` ç `€€Lß›KAREN€MARIE€BISSON€STEELMAN,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÓ€ÓÔ€=„Ôà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÔ€=¼ÔÌà àMichael€Scott€Evans€is€seeking€nothing€more€than€to€acknowledge€hisÏparental€responsibilities€to€Jacob€Ryan€Steelman.€€The€majority,€however,€hasÏdecided€that€he€is€not€entitled€to€prove€in€court€that€he€is€the€boyððs€biologicalÏfather€simply€because€the€childððs€mother€was€married€to€another€man€when€heÏwas€born.€€This€decision€rests€squarely€on€an€erroneous€judicial€interpretationÏof€Tennesseeððs€legitimation€statutes.€€Rather€than€perpetuating€injustice,€ourÏresponsibility€as€œcommon€law›€judges€is€to€remedy,€not€ignore,€plain€judicialÏmistakes.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€fall€into€an€all€too€common€pattern.€€Karen€MarieÏ¢Bisson£€Steelman€married€Jamie€R.€Steelman€in€July€1993€when€she€was€onlyÏeighteen€years€old.€€The€marriage€foundered€within€six€months,€and€inÏJanuary€1994€Ms.€Steelman€left€her€husband€and€moved€into€an€apartmentÍwith€Michael€Scott€Evans.× ƒC ××  ×€€Ms.€Steelman€admittedly€had€sex€regularly€withÏMr.€Evans.€€After€discovering€that€she€was€pregnant€in€March€1994,€Ms.ÏSteelman€openly€acknowledged€to€Mr.€Evans€and€his€family€as€well€as€to€herÏmedical€providers€and€other€acquaintances€that€Mr.€Evans€was€the€childððsÏfather.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Evans€began€making€preparations€for€the€child€with€the€expectationÏthat€he€would€eventually€marry€Ms.€Steelman.€€However,€his€relationship€withÏMs.€Steelman€soured€in€June€1994€apparently€because€of€a€dispute€over€theirÏunborn€child.€€On€June€13,€1994,€Ms.€Steelman€wrote€Mr.€Evans€a€noteÏstating:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àI€have€always€said€that€I€would€never€keep€ourÏchild€away€from€you,€but€donððt€you€dare€think€for€aÏsecond€that€I€would€let€you€take€my€child€from€me.€ÏDonððt€even€think€about€trying€because€youððll€beÏsorry.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àYes€I€didnððt€graduate,€but€thatððs€being€takenÏcare€of€now.€€Yes€I€got€married€at€18€and€am€gettingÏdivorced.€€I€also€got€beat„up.€€Yes€I€am€pregnant€by€aÏman€who€is€not€my€husband,€but€you€also€got€anotherÏmanððs€wife€pregnant.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àI€promise€youððll€be€sorry€if€you€try€to€take€myÏchild€away.€€As€long€as€Iððm€alive€you€will€not€haveÏcustody€of€our€baby.€€As€long€as€you€donððt€test€that,Ïyou€will€be€able€to€see€your€child€as€much€as€youÏwant.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àI€canððt€handle€all€the€stress€that€youððre€puttingÏon€me,€so€for€our€childððs€sake,€please€stop.ÌÌÓ€ÓMs.€Steelman€moved€out€of€Mr.€Evansððs€apartment€in€early€July€1994€withoutÏtelling€him€where€she€was€going.€€She€telephoned€Mr.€Evans€in€August€toÏinform€him€that€she€was€returning€to€Mr.€Steelman,€that€the€child€would€notÏbear€his€surname,€and€that€she€would€not€list€him€as€the€childððs€father€on€theÏbirth€certificate.ÌÌà àThereafter,€Ms.€Steelman€kept€Mr.€Evans€in€the€dark€about€herÏpregnancy€and€the€child.€€On€November€24,€1994,€Ms.€Steelman€gave€birth€toÏa€son€named€Jacob€Ryan€Steelman.€€She€listed€Mr.€Steelman€as€the€father€onÏthe€childððs€birth€certificate.€€Mr.€Evans€found€out€about€the€childððs€birth€threeÏdays€later€when€the€hospital€telephoned€his€residence€seeking€Ms.€Steelman.ÌÌà àWhen€Ms.€Steelman€rebuffed€his€efforts€to€see€the€child,€Mr.€EvansÏhired€a€lawyer€and€on€December€12,€1994,€filed€a€sworn€petition€to€legitimateÏthe€child€in€the€Davidson€County€Juvenile€Court.€€Mr.€Evans€made€anÏunconditional€offer€in€the€petition€to€support€the€child€financially€andÏrequested€the€juvenile€court€to€order€the€parties€to€submit€to€œblood€tests›€toÏconclusively€establish€that€he€was€the€childððs€biological€father.€€ÌÌà àMs.€Steelman€vigorously€opposed€Mr.€Evansððs€legitimation€petition€justÏas€she€threatened€she€would€in€her€June€13,€1994€note.€€While€she€did€not€denyÏher€six„month€sexual€liaison€with€Mr.€Evans,€she€obtained€an€affidavit€fromÏMr.€Steelman€asserting€that€he€had€also€continued€to€have€sex€with€Ms.ÏSteelman€while€she€was€living€with€Mr.€Evans€and€that€he€considered€himselfÏto€be€the€childððs€father.€€She€also€asserted€in€her€answer€and€in€a€later€motionÏto€dismiss€that€Mr.€Evans€had€no€standing€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202Ï(Supp.€1995)€to€file€a€legitimation€petition.€€Her€argument€rested€on€thisÍcourtððs€construction€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€in€òòCunningham€v.ÏGolden,óó€652€¢S.W.2d£€910,€913€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983),€òòappeal€dismissed,óó€466ÏU.S.€966,€104€S.€Ct.€2336€(1984),€that€a€child€born€while€its€mother€wasÏmarried€could€not€be€considered€as€a€ð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€forÏthe€purpose€of€the€legitimation€statute.€ÌÌà àOn€June€15,€1995,€Mr.€Evans€filed€a€formal€acknowledgment€that€heÏwas€Jacob€Ryan€Steelmanððs€biological€father€with€the€Putative€Father€RegistryÏmaintained€by€the€Department€of€Human€Services€in€accordance€with€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„2„209€(1991€&€Supp.€1995).€€A€juvenile€court€referee€and€theÏjuvenile€court€judge€later€dismissed€his€petition€without€ordering€blood€testsÏon€the€ground€that€he€did€not€have€standing€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202€to€legitimate€Jacob€Ryan€Steelman.€€The€majority€has€decided€to€affirm.€ÏWhile€proclaiming€that€they€might€interpret€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202Ïdifferently€were€it€not€for€the€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision,€they€haveÏdecided€not€to€consider€the€question€anew€because€they€believe€that€theÏlegislature€has€somehow€written€the€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision€into€theÏcurrent€legitimation€statutes.ÌÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àThe€threshold€issue€is€whether€the€construction€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„2„202(a)€in€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€has€become€so€firmly€established€thatÏthe€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€places€it€beyond€our€consideration€at€this€time.ÍWhile€adhering€to€precedent€is€usually€a€wise€policy,€the€courts€are€notÏconstrained€to€follow€precedents€that€have€produced€unjust€results€or€areÏpoorly€reasoned.€ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àThe€common€law€consists€of€a€vast€body€of€judicial€precedentsÏrepresenting€the€courtsðð€resolution€of€concrete€controversies€using€workableÏsolutions€to€control€conduct€or€to€define€legal€relations.€€These€precedentsÏprovide€the€courts€with€authoritative€guidance€for€their€decisions× ƒD ××  ×€and€alsoÏenable€the€bar€and€the€public€to€predict€how€the€courts€will€decide€futureÏcases.¢× ƒE ××  ×£€€They€serve€their€purpose€best€when€they€are€consistent€and€uniform,ÏòòState€ex€rel.€¢Pitts£€v.€Nashville€Baseball€Club,óó€127€Tenn.€292,€303,€154€¢S.W.£Ï1151,€1154€(1913);€òò¢Steedman£,€¢Steere£€&€Co.€v.€Dobbins€&€¢Dazey£,óó€93€Tenn.Ï397,€406,€24€¢S.W.£€1133,€1135€(1894),€and€it€is€this€uniformity€and€consistencyÏthat€undergirds€the€publicððs€confidence€in€the€judicial€system.€€òò¢Dupuis£€v.€Hand,óóÏ814€¢S.W.2d£€340,€345€(Tenn.€1991);€òòDavis€v.€Davis,óó€657€¢S.W.2d£€753,€758Ï(Tenn.€1983).ÌÌà àJudicial€decisions€are€shaped€not€only€by€legal€principles€and€doctrinesÏbut€also€by€the€decision„making€techniques€used€to€develop€and€apply€them.× ƒF ××  ×€ÍIt€is€the€courtsðð€respect€for€the€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€that€accounts€for€theÏuniformity€of€the€precedents€and€the€consistency€in€the€courtsðð€decision„making€techniques.€€As€a€decision„making€technique,€the€doctrine€of€stareÏ¢decisis£€promotes€consistency€by€requiring€adherence€to€settled€principles€ofÏlaw€recognized€and€followed€in€earlier€cases.€€òòStaten€v.€State,óó€191€Tenn.€157,Ï159,€232€¢S.W.2d£€18,€19€(1950);€òòBartonððs€Lessee€v.€Shall,óó€7€Tenn.€(Peck)€214,Ï232€(1823).€€Thus,€stare€¢decisis£€admonishes€courts€not€to€overturn€decisions€inÏan€arbitrary€or€cavalier€manner.€€òòFerguson€v.€Ram€Enters.,€Inc.,óó€900€¢S.W.2d£Ï19,€21€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€¢Kendricks£,óó€891€¢S.W.2d£€597,€603€(Tenn.€1994).€ÌÌà àAs€important€as€the€doctrine€is,€stare€¢decisis£€is€not€an€inexorableÏcommand,€òòPayne€v.€Tennessee,óó€501€U.S.€808,€828,€111€S.€Ct.€2597,€2609„10Ï(1991),€or€an€inflexible,€mechanical€formula.€€òòCity€of€Memphis€v.€¢Overton£,Ïóó216€Tenn.€293,€298,€392€¢S.W.2d£€98,€100€(1965).€€It€does€not€commandÏð ðmindless€obedienceðð€from€the€courts.€€òòMcIntyre€v.€¢Balentine£,€óó833€¢S.W.2d£€52,Ï56€(Tenn.€1992);€òòHanover€v.€¢Ruch£,óó€809€¢S.W.2d£€893,€898€(Tenn.€1991).€€PriorÏdecisions€are€not€ð ðlike€the€holy€ark€of€the€covenant,€too€sacred€to€be€touched.ðð€ÏòòBartonððs€Lessee€v.€Shall,€óó7€Tenn.€(Peck)€at€232.€€Since€the€law€should€serveÏthe€needs€of€the€people,€òò¢Dupuis£€v.€Hand,óó€814€¢S.W.2d£€at€345„46;€òòPowell€v.ÏHartford€Accident€&€Indem.€Co.,óó€217€Tenn.€503,€513,€398€¢S.W.2d£€727,€732Ï(1966),€the€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€should€not€impede€the€growth€andÏdevelopment€of€the€law.€€òò¢Hamby£€v.€¢McDaniel£,óó€559€¢S.W.2d£€774,€780€(Tenn.Ï1977);€òò¢Shousha£€v.€Matthews€¢Drivurself£€Serv.,€Inc.,óó€210€Tenn.€384,€389,€358Ï¢S.W.2d£€471,€473€(1962).ÌÌà àThe€courts€must€re„examine€prior€decisions€when€the€circumstancesÏrequire.€€If€they€cannot€distinguish€or€sidestep€a€prior€decision,¢× ƒG ××  ×£€they€must€beÏprepared€to€reject€and€overrule€when€necessary€to€protect€the€interests€andÏrights€of€the€public€and€to€promote€respect€for€the€law.¢× ƒH ××  ×£€€The€courts€shouldÏexercise€their€power€sparingly,€òò¢Edingbourgh£€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€&€Co.,óó€206ÏTenn.€660,€664,€337€¢S.W.2d£€13,€14€(1960);€òò¢J.T.£€¢Fargason£€Co.€v.€Ball,óó€128ÏTenn.€at€142,€159€¢S.W.£€at€222,€and€should€only€disregard€a€prior€decisionÏwhen€the€difficulties€caused€by€doing€so€are€outweighed€by€the€problemsÏcaused€by€adhering€to€the€earlier€decision.€€òòLee€v.€Harris,óó€188€Tenn.€373,€376„77,€219€¢S.W.2d£€892,€893€(1949);€òò¢Steedman£,€¢Steere£€&€Co.€v.€Dobbins€&Ï¢Dazey£,óó€93€Tenn.€at€406,€24€¢S.W.£€at€1135.ÌÌà àThe€courts€must€have€a€compelling€reason€to€overturn€a€prior€decision.€ÏòòBlue€Ridge€Ins.€Co.€v.€¢Haun£,€óó197€Tenn.€527,€536,€276€¢S.W.2d£€711,€715Ï(1954);€òòBarnes€v.€Walker,óó€191€Tenn.€364,€369,€234€¢S.W.2d£€648,€650€(1950).€ÏThe€two€most€common€circumstances€warranting€the€relaxation€of€theÏdoctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€are€when€the€prior€precedent€has€become€obsoleteÏbecause€of€changes€in€the€law,€òòFerguson€v.€Ram€Enters.,€Inc.,€óó900€¢S.W.2d£€atÏ21;€òòMetropolitan€¢Govððt£€v.€Poe,€óó215€Tenn.€53,€80„81,€383€¢S.W.2d£€265,€277Ï(1964),€or€when€the€prior€decision€has€manifestly€misunderstood€orÏmisapplied€the€law.€€òòSummers€v.€Thompson,óó€764€¢S.W.2d£€182,€199€(Tenn.Í1988)€(¢Drowota£,€J.,€concurring);€òòFoster€v.€Roberts,óó€142€Tenn.€350,€360,€219Ï¢S.W.£€729,€731€(1920);€òòArnold€v.€Mayor€of€Knoxville,óó€115€Tenn.€195,€202,€90Ï¢S.W.£€469,€470€(1905);€òòThe€Judgesðð€Cases,óó€102€Tenn.€509,€542,€53€¢S.W.£€134,Ï142€(1899).ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€does€not€apply€with€full€force€to€principlesÏthat€have€not€been€directly€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSwift€v.ÏKirby,óó€737€¢S.W.2d£€271,€277€(Tenn.€1987).€€Lower€courts€must€follow€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€decisions,€òòPayne€v.€Johnson,óó€2€Tenn.€¢Cas£.Ï(Shannon)€542,€543€(1877);€òò¢Haun£€v.€Guaranty€Sec.€Ins.€Co.,óó€61€Tenn.€App.Ï137,€158,€453€¢S.W.2d£€84,€94€(1969);€òò¢Levitan£€v.€¢Banniza£,óó€34€Tenn.€App.€176,Ï185,€236€¢S.W.2d£€90,€95€(1950),€but€they€are€not€required€to€adhere€as€strictlyÏto€decisions€of€courts€of€coordinate€or€lesser€jurisdiction.€€While€publishedÏintermediate€appellate€court€decisions€have€some€precedential€value,€òòMeadowsÏv.€State,óó€849€¢S.W.2d£€748,€752€(Tenn.€1993),€the€precedential€value€ofÏunpublished€opinions€is€somewhat€weaker.€€òòFord€v.€State,óó€184€Tenn.€443,€454,Ï201€¢S.W.2d£€539,€544€(1947).€€Thus,€intermediate€appellate€court€decisionsÏwhere€no€application€for€permission€to€appeal€has€been€filed€have€no€stareÏ¢decisis£€effect.€€òòSwift€v.€Kirby,óó€737€¢S.W.2d£€at€277;€òòBoard€of€¢Commððrs£€v.Ï¢Obion£€County,óó€188€Tenn.€666,€669,€222€¢S.W.2d£€7,€8€(1949);òò€Gotten€v.€Gotten,óóÏ748€¢S.W.2d£€430,€431€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€never€construed€the€meaning€of€theÏphrase€ð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a).€ÏThe€first€reported€judicial€construction€of€this€phrase€appeared€in€theòòÍCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision.€€This€decision€has€been€followed€by€panels€ofÏthe€Eastern€and€Western€Sections€of€this€court€in€one€published€and€threeÏunpublished€decisions.€€òòCooper€v.€Thompson,óó€710€¢S.W.2d£€944,€946€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1985);€òòIn€re€Young€(Meadows€v.€Wells),óó€App.€No.€01„A„01„9409„GS„00417,€slip€op.€at€2„3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€30,€1995)€(MemorandumÏOpinion),€òòperm.€app.€œdeniedóó›€(Tenn.€Oct.€23,€1995);€òò¢Frady£€v.€¢Frady£,óó€C.A.€No.Ï155,€slip€op.€at€3„4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€18,€1991)€(Memorandum€Opinion),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€June€24,€1991);€òòIn€re€¢Doss£€(¢Doss£€v.€Daily),óó€C.A.ÏNo.€69,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€9,€1989)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€declined€to€review€the€òòCunningham€v.ÏGoldenóó€decision× ƒI ××  ×€and€three€of€the€four€cases€following€it.€€These€dispositionsÏdo€not€add€precedential€weight€to€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€because€the€simpleÏdenial€of€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€does€not€indicate€that€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€agrees€with€any€of€the€holdings€in€the€decision.€ÏòòMeadows€v.€State,óó€849€¢S.W.2d£€at€752;€òòSwift€v.€Kirby,óó€737€¢S.W.2d£€at€277;ÏòòBryan€v.€Aetna€Life€Ins.€Co.,óó€174€Tenn.€602,€611,€130€¢S.W.2d£€85,€88€(1939);Ïòò¢Lingner£€v.€¢Lingner£,€óó165€Tenn.€525,€529,€56€¢S.W.2d£€749,€750€(1933).œ× ƒJ ××  ×›ÌÌà àThus€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€has€not€become€so€ingrained€in€our€lawÏthat€it€should€be€viewed€as€a€rule€of€property.€€In€the€absence€of€anÏauthoritative€interpretation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court,€the€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£€does€not€prevent€usÏfrom€reconsidering€one€of€our€own€decisions€and€departing€from€it€if€theÏcircumstances€require.€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àThe€common€law€treated€children€born€out€of€wedlock€harshly.€ÏBecause€they€were€considered€to€be€no€oneððs€children,€they€could€not€requireÏtheir€biological€father€to€support€them€and€could€not€inherit€from€theirÏbiological€parent.€€òòAllen€v.€Harvey,óó€568€¢S.W.2d£€829,€831„32€(Tenn.€1978);ÏòòSwanson€v.€Swanson,óó€32€Tenn.€(2€Swan)€445,€453€(1852).€€Because€there€wasÏno€judicial€remedy,€the€only€way€to€legitimate€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock€wasÏby€ð ðthe€transcendent€power€of€an€act€of€parliament.ðð€€1€William€Blackstone,ÏòòCommentariesóó€*459.€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€early€years€of€Tennesseeððs€statehood,€the€General€AssemblyÏwas€frequently€called€upon€to€enact€legislation€to€legitimate€particularÏindividuals.€€€These€acts€were€looked€upon€with€œdisfavor;›€òòMcCormick€v.ÏCantrellóó,€15€Tenn.€(7€Yer.)€615,€623€(1835).€€The€number€of€these€requestsÏhad€increased€so€much€by€1805€that€the€General€Assembly€empowered€theÏcourts€to€legitimate€children€born€out€of€wedlock.€€Act€of€Oct.€3,€1805,€ch.€2,Ï1805€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€4.¢× ƒK ××  ×£€€The€creation€of€this€judicial€remedy€did€not€succeedÍin€diverting€legitimation€matters€from€the€legislature€to€the€courts.€ÏAccordingly,€the€drafters€of€the€Constitution€of€1835€included€a€provision€inÏthe€new€constitution€prohibiting€the€General€Assembly€œfrom›€œsuspending›€anyÏgeneral€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€particular€individual.€€Tenn.€Const.€of€1835,Ïart.€XI,€ðð€7.œ× ƒL ××  ×›€€Later,€the€drafters€of€the€Constitution€of€œ1870›€included€aÏœprovision€specifically›€prohibiting€the€General€Assembly€from€"pass[ing]€actsÏadopting€or€legitimatizing€persons."€€Tenn€Const.€art.€XI,€ðð€6.ÌÌà àThe€original€legitimation€act€provided€thatÌÓÓà8 àà8 àany€of€the€inperior€[sic]€or€county€courts€of€law€inÏthis€state,€shall€have€full€power€and€authority€to€alterÏthe€name€of€any€illegitimate€person€on€application€ofÏany€person€wishing€to€make€legitimate€any€of€theirÏoff„spring€not€born€in€wedlock:€òòProvidedóó,€saidÏapplicant€intends€to€make€said€illegitimate€personÏheir,€or€joint€heir€to€his€or€her€estate.ÌÌÓ€ÓAct€of€Oct.€3,€1805,€ch.€2,€ðð€1,€1805€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€4.€€This€provision€wasÏaltered€slightly€in€the€1858€Code€of€Tennessee€to€provide:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€application€to€legitimate€a€child€not€bornÏin€lawful€wedlock€is€made€by€a€petition€in€writing,Ïsigned€by€the€person€wishing€to€legitimate€such€child,Ïand€setting€forth€the€reasons€therefor.ÌÌÓ€ÓCode€of€Tennessee€ðð€3640€(1858).€€This€language€has€been€carried€forwardÏessentially€unchanged€into€the€current€code€and€was€the€very€languageÏconstrued€in€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a).× ƒM ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€has€amended€the€legitimation€statutes€twice€sinceÏthe€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision,€but€neither€change€related€to€the€class€ofÏpersons€permitted€to€file€legitimation€actions€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€or€to€the€class€of€children€for€whom€legitimation€could€be€requested.€ÏIn€1992,€the€General€Assembly€provided€natural€fathers€with€a€secondÏprocedure€for€acknowledging€the€paternity€of€a€child€born€out€of€wedlock.€€ItÏauthorized€them€to€execute€a€notarized€ð ðacknowledgment€of€paternityðð€at€theÏhospital€where€the€child€was€born.€€It€also€required€the€hospital€to€forward€theÏbirth€certificate€and€acknowledgment€of€paternity€to€the€juvenile€court€andÏdirected€the€juvenile€court€to€enter€an€order€of€legitimation€consistent€withÏthese€documents.€€Act€of€Apr.€30,€1992,€ch.€1012,€ðð€1,€1992€Tenn.€Pub.€ActsÏ1049,€1050€(codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(b)(1),€„202(b)(2)€(Supp.Ï1992)).€€In€addition,€the€1992€legislation€provided€that€this€new€alternateÏprocedure€could€not€be€used€without€the€motherððs€consent€and€that€any€orderÏof€legitimation€based€on€an€ð ðacknowledgment€of€paternityðð€could€be€rescindedÏif€a€later€blood€test€proved€conclusively€that€ð ðthe€named€father€cannot€be€theÍnatural€father€of€the€child.ðð€€Act€of€Apr.€30,€1992,€ch.€1012,€ðð€1,€1992€Tenn.ÏPub.€Acts€1049,€1050€(codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(b)(3),€„202(b)(4)€(Supp.€1992)).ÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€amended€the€ð ðacknowledgment€of€paternityððÏprocedure€in€1994.× ƒN ××  ×€€The€apparent€purpose€of€this€amendment€was€to€clarifyÏthe€procedure€for€filing€the€notarized€acknowledgment€of€paternity€and€birthÏcertificate€with€the€juvenile€court€and€to€remove€the€provision€permitting€theÏfather€to€use€a€later€blood€test€to€rescind€an€order€of€paternity.€€ThisÏamendment€also€changed€the€designation€of€the€maternal€consent€requirementÏfrom€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(b)(3)€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(c).× ƒO ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€phrase€ð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ36„2„202(a)€has€existed€without€change€for€almost€one€hundred€and€fortyÏyears.€€Neither€of€the€two€amendments€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202Ïenacted€after€the€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision€altered€this€phrase.€€NothingÏin€the€language€of€the€amendments€themselves€or€in€their€legislative€historyÏconfirms,€or€even€implies,€that€the€General€Assembly€intended€to€depart€fromÏthe€common,€traditional€meaning€of€the€phrase€in€favor€of€the€interpretativeÏgloss€put€on€the€phrase€in€òòCunningham€v.€œGoldenóó€or€even€that€it€was€aware€ofÍthe€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision.›€€Since€there€is€no€œdirect,€reliable€support›Ïfor€the€notion€that€the€General€Assembly€has€somehow€approved€theÏòòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision,œ× ƒP ××  ×›€the€1992€and€1994€amendments€to€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202,€like€the€doctrine€of€stare€¢decisis£,€should€not€prevent€usÏfrom€reconsidering€the€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€decision.̛̜à@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àTennesseeððs€legitimation€statutes€must€be€understood€and€applied€not€justÏin€light€of€their€historical€background€but€also€in€light€of€contemporaryÏcircumstances.€€This€court€overlooked€the€common€meaning€of€the€phraseÏð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€when€it€decided€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€inÏ1983€and€thereby€mistakenly€restricted€the€class€of€persons€permitted€to€fileÍlegitimation€actions.€€As€a€result,€the€court€placed€a€cloud€over€theÏconstitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€and€also€placed€the€statuteÏin€conflict€with€other€statutes€dealing€with€the€rights€of€children€whoseÏbiological€parents€are€not€married€to€each€other.€€Because€the€consequences€ofÏcontinuing€to€follow€the€erroneous€construction€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€far€outweigh€the€benefits€of€correcting€our€mistake,€I€will€not€hesitateÏto€reinterpret€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a).̛̜à@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àStatutory€construction€is€essentially€a€judicial€function.€€òò¢Worley£€v.Ï¢Weigels£,€Inc.,€óó919€¢S.W.2d£€589,€592€(Tenn.€1996);€òò¢Roseman£€v.€¢Roseman£,óó€890Ï¢S.W.2d£€27,€29€(Tenn.€1994).€€It€refers€to€the€process€by€which€the€courtsÏascertain€and€then€give€the€fullest€possible€effect€to€a€statuteððs€purpose.€€òò¢Cronin£Ï¢v.€Howe£,óó€906€¢S.W.2d£€910,€912€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWilson€v.€Johnson€County,óó€879Ï¢S.W.2d£€807,€809€(Tenn.€1994).€€When€called€upon€to€construe€a€statute,€theÏcourts€must€take€care€not€to€unduly€restrict€the€statuteððs€application€orÏconversely€to€expand€its€coverage€beyond€its€intended€scope.€€òò¢Kultura£,€Inc.€v.ÏSouthern€Leasing€Corp.,óó€923€¢S.W.2d£€536,€539€(Tenn.€1996);€òòIn€re€StoreyÏ(Storey€v.€Bradford€Furniture€Co.),óó€910€¢S.W.2d£€857,€859€(Tenn.€1995);€òòIn€reÏConservatorship€of€Clayton€(Salvatore€v.€Clayton),óó€914€¢S.W.2d£€84,€90€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àThe€search€for€a€statuteððs€purpose€necessarily€begins€with€the€words€ofÏthe€statute€itself.€€òòSpencer€v.€Towson€Moving€&€Storage,€Inc.,€óó922€¢S.W.2d£Ï508,€510€(Tenn.€1996);€òòWinter€v.€Smith,óó€914€¢S.W.2d£€527,€538€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).€€Unless€the€legislature€signals€otherwise,€we€assign€these€wordsÍtheir€natural€and€ordinary€meaning.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Metro.€¢Govððt£€v.€¢Spicewood£ÏCreek€Watershed€Dist.,óó€848€¢S.W.2d£€60,€62€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€consider€notÏonly€the€immediate€context€in€which€the€œwords›€appear,€òò¢McClain£€v.€Henry€I.ÏSiegel€Co.,óó€834€¢S.W.2d£€295,€296€(Tenn.€1992),€but€also€the€statuteððs€overallÏpurposes€and€established€public€policy.€€òòState€v.€Turner,óó€913€¢S.W.2d£€158,€160Ï(Tenn.€1995)€(consideration€of€the€statuteððs€overall€purposes);€òò¢Cronin£€v.ÏHowe,óó€906€¢S.W.2d£€at€912€(consideration€of€public€policy).ÌÌà àWhen€possible,€we€must€avoid€constructions€that€render€any€part€of€aÏstatute€inoperative€or€void,€òò¢Tidwell£€v.€Collins,óó€522€¢S.W.2d£€674,€676„77Ï(Tenn.€1975);€òò¢Mangrum£€v.€Owens,óó€917€¢S.W.2d£€244,€246€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995),€or€that€place€one€statute€in€conflict€with€another.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Boone€v.Ï¢Sundquist£,óó€884€¢S.W.2d£€438,€444€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€ex€rel.€Metro.€¢Govððt£€v.Ï¢Spicewood£€Creek€Watershed€Dist.,óó€848€¢S.W.2d£€at€62.€€Thus,€the€meaning€ofÏan€ambiguous€word€or€phrase€in€one€statute€may€be€discovered€by€consideringÏthe€language€and€purpose€of€related€statutes.€€òòState€v.€¢Blouvett£,óó€904€¢S.W.2d£Ï111,€113€(Tenn.€1995);€òò¢Roseman£€v.€¢Roseman£,óó€890€¢S.W.2d£€at€29;€òòLyons€v.Ï¢Rasar£,óó€872€¢S.W.2d£€895,€897€(Tenn.€1994).€ÌÌà àThe€courts€should€construe€unambiguous€statutes€according€to€theirÏplain€meaning.€€òò¢Atchley£€v.€Life€Care€Ctr.,óó€906€¢S.W.2d£€428,€431€(Tenn.€1995);Ïòò¢Neff£€v.€Cherokee€Ins.€Co.,€óó704€¢S.W.2d£€1,€3€(Tenn.€1986).€€When,€however,€aÏstatute€is€ambiguous€or€unclear,€we€may€resort€to€the€various€rules€ofÏstatutory€construction€to€ascertain€its€purpose€and€the€proper€scope€of€itsÏapplication.€€No€single€rule€of€construction€is€preferable€to€the€others,€andÏthus€we€should€bring€all€applicable€rules€to€bear€in€order€to€ascertain€aÏstatuteððs€meaning€and€application.€€òò¢O.H.£€May€Co.€v.€Anderson,óó€156€Tenn.€216,Í219„20,€300€¢S.W.£€12,€14€(1927);€òòDavenport€v.€Chrysler€Credit€Corp.,óó€818Ï¢S.W.2d£€23,€27€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€must€be€construed€in€light€of€itsÏcontemporary€milieu.€€The€law€and€societyððs€attitude€toward€children€born€toÏwomen€who€are€not€married€to€the€childððs€biological€father€have€changedÏsignificantly€since€the€late€eighteenth€century€when€Lord€Mansfield€decidedÏòò¢Goodright£€v.€Mossóó.¢œ× ƒQ ××  ×›£€€We€do€a€disservice€not€only€to€the€parties€in€this€caseÏbut€also€to€the€law€itself€if€we€permit€our€understanding€and€application€of€oldÏstatutes€to€be€frozen€in€a€pattern€imposed€by€an€earlier€generationððs€prejudicesÏand€limitations.ÌÌà àOne„third€of€all€children€born€in€Tennessee€today€are€born€toÏunmarried€mothers.¢× ƒR ××  ×£€The€legal€position€of€these€children€is€markedlyÏdifferent€than€that€of€their€counterparts€two€hundred€years€ago.€€They€have€œa›Ístatutory€right€to€inherit€from€their€biological€mother€and€father.× ƒS ××  ×€€TheyÏhave€a€statutory€right€to€receive€support€from€both€of€their€biologicalÏparents.× ƒT ××  ×€€In€addition,€they€have€a€constitutional€right€not€to€be€discriminatedÏagainst€because€of€the€marital€status€of€their€biological€parents.× ƒU ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAlong€with€these€improvements€in€the€legal€status€of€children€whoseÏbiological€parents€are€not€married€to€each€other,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏhas€redefined€and€expanded€the€parental€rights€of€biological€parents.€€LikeÏmany€of€its€counterparts€in€other€states,€the€Court€has€held€unequivocally€thatÏparents,€notwithstanding€their€marital€status,€possess€fundamental€rights€withÏregard€to€¢€their€biological€children.€€òò¢Petrosky£€v.€Keene,óó€898€¢S.W.2d£€726,€728Ï(Tenn.€1995);€òò¢Nale£€v.€Robertson,óó€871€¢S.W.2d£€674,€678€(Tenn.€1994).× ƒV ××  ×€€Thus,Ïin€contemporary€society,€the€legal€rights€and€status€of€children€and€theirÏparents€do€not€necessarily€depend€upon€whether€the€parents€were€married€toÏeach€other€when€their€child€or€children€were€born.ÌÌà àUntil€relatively€recent€times,€Lord€Mansfieldððs€Rule€provided€aÏconvenient€substitute€for€either€unavailable€or€unreliable€proof€of€parentage.€ÏIn€the€place€of€inherently€suspect€testimony€from€the€childððs€mother€or€father,Ïthe€rule€confirmed€that€legitimacy€of€all€children€should€be€a€societal€norm.€ÏThis€¢rebuttable£€presumption€of€legitimacy¢× ƒW ××  ×£€for€children€born€to€a€marriedÏwoman€placed€the€burden€on€those€desiring€to€prove€otherwise€to€¢rebut£€theÏpresumption€with€clear,€strong,€and€convincing€proof.€€òòGower€v.€State,óó€155ÏTenn.€138,€144,€290€¢S.W.£€978,€980€(1927);€òòJackson€v.€Thornton,óó€133€Tenn.Ï36,€39,€179€¢S.W.€384,€384€(1915);€òòFrazier€v.€¢McFerren£,óó€55€Tenn.€App.€431,Ï440,€402€¢S.W.2d£€467,€472€(1964);€òòState€ex€rel.€¢Hardesty£€v.€Sparks,óó€28€Tenn.ÏApp.€329,€335,€190€¢S.W.2d£€302,€304„05€(1945).€€This€presumption€is€noÏlonger€required€because€of€the€widespread€availability€of€highly€reliableÏscientific€tests€that€can€prove€or€disprove€parentage.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ24„7„112,€„117€(Supp.€1996)€(applications€of€blood,€genetic,€and€DNAÏtesting).€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àThe€phrase€ð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€and€similar€phrases€haveÏa€long€history€of€judicial€construction.€€Only€the€òòCunningham€v.€GoldenóóÏdecision€and€the€few€Tennessee€cases€following€it€have€limited€its€meaning€toÏchildren€born€to€an€unmarried€mother.€€Virtually€every€other€courtÍconsidering€the€question€has€held€that€the€term€ð ðwedlockðð€in€these€phrasesÏrefers€to€the€marital€status€of€the€childððs€biological€parents€with€regard€to€eachÏother.¢× ƒX ××  ×£€€Thus,€phrases€such€as€ð ðchild€born€out€of€lawful€wedlockðð€have€beenÏconsistently€construed€to€include€not€only€children€born€to€unmarried€womenÏbut€also€children€whose€biological€parents€are€not€married€to€each€other.× ƒY ××  ×€€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€being€out€of€step€with€the€prevailing€understanding€of€theÏmeaning€of€the€phrase,€the€construction€of€ð ðchild€born€out€of€lawful€wedlockððÏin€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€places€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202€on€a€collisionÏcourse€with€other€statutes€defining€the€rights€and€responsibilities€of€unmarriedÏbiological€parents€and€their€children.€€Our€legitimation€statutes,× ƒZ ××  ×€paternityÏstatutes,× ƒ[ ××  ×€and€statute€pertaining€to€intestate€successionœ× ƒ\ ××  ×›€are€all€intended€toÍremove€the€common„law€disabilities€of€children€born€to€parents€who€are€notÏmarried€to€each€other.€€These€statutes€define€the€obligation€of€biologicalÏparents€to€support€their€children€and€also€define€the€rights€of€these€children€toÏsupport€and€to€inherit€from€both€biological€parents.€€Notwithstanding€earlierÏdecisions€drawing€nice€distinctions€between€the€ð ðpurposesðð€of€these€statutes,¢× ƒ] ××  ×£Ïthey€should€be€construed€in€pari€materia€in€order€to€assure€that€their€operationÏand€effect€is€uniform€and€consistent.ÌÌà à€€€€The€paternity€statutes€apply€to€children€ð ðborn€out€of€lawfulÏwedlock.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„101(1).€€We€have€repeatedly€construedÏthis€phrase€in€the€context€of€paternity€proceedings€to€include€children€who€areÏborn€to€an€unmarried€woman€and€to€children€who€are€born€to€a€marriedÏwoman€whose€husband€is€not€the€childððs€biological€father.€€òò¢Tindle£€v.€Gay,óó€891Ï¢S.W.2d£€617,€618€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòFrazier€v.€¢McFerren£,óó€55€Tenn.€App.Ïat€438,€402€¢S.W.2d£€at€471.× ƒ^ ××  ×€€¢Likewise£,€we€have€construed€the€statute€givingÏpersons€ð ðborn€out€of€wedlockðð€the€right€to€inherit€from€their€biologicalÏparents€in€a€similar€fashion.€€òòIn€re€Estate€of€Armstrong€(Adams€v.€Manis),óóÏ859€¢S.W.2d£€at€327.€€ÌÌà àConstruing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€to€apply€to€children€whoseÏmother€is€not€married€to€their€biological€father€is€consistent€with€theÍTennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€recognition€of€the€rights€of€biological€parents€whoÏhave€taken€positive€steps€to€establish€a€relationship€with€their€children.€€¢òòNale£Ïv.€Robertsonóó,€871€¢S.W.2d£€at€678.€€While€promoting€consistency€among€ourÏstatutes,€it€also€aligns€Tennessee€with€approximately€two„thirds€of€our€sisterÏstates€that€give€putative€fathers€the€right€to€rebut€the€presumption€that€a€childÏborn€to€a€married€woman€is€the€issue€of€the€marriage.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Roy€AllenÏS.€v.€Stone,óó€No.€23355,€1996€WL€328367,€at€*12€(W.€Va.€June€14,€1996);Ïòò¢Weidenbacher£€v.€¢Duclos£,óó€661€A.2d€at€999;€¢Traci£€Dallas,€Note,òò€Rebutting€theÏMarital€Presumption:€A€Developed€Relationship€Test,óó€88€¢Colum£.€L.€Rev.€369,Ï373„74€(1988).ÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àò òV.ó óÌœÌà àThe€courts€should€avoid€construing€statutes€in€a€way€that€renders€themÏconstitutionally€suspect.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Mynatt€v.€Kingóó,€137€Tenn.€17,€31,€191ÏS.W.€352,€355€(1917);€òòIllinois€Cent.€R.R.€v.€Crideróó,€91€Tenn.€489,€506,€19ÏS.W.€618,€622€(1892).€€We€should€also€avoid€deciding€constitutional€issuesÏunless€required€to€do€so.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995);ÏòòWatts€v.€Memphis€Transit€Management€Co.óó,€224€Tenn.€721,€727,€462€S.W.2dÏ495,€498€(1971);€òòStokes€v.€Leungóó,€651€S.W.2d€704,€711€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1982).€€My€construction€furthers€both€goals.ÌÌ›à àIn€addition€to€creating€disharmony€between€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€31„2„105€&€36„2„101(1),€the€majority'sÏinterpretation€also€places€the€statute€on€a€collision€course€with€the€Due€ProcessÍand€Equal€Protection€Clauses€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee.€€MyÏconstruction€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€avoids€these€constitutionalÏinfirmities.€€Accordingly,€I€do€not€join€in€the€discussion€of€theÏconstitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ36„2„202(a)›€in€Section€IV€of€theÏmajority's€opinion.€€In€my€mind,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a),€asÏconstrued€by€the€majority,€deprives€putative€biological€fathers€of€aÏfundamental€constitutional€right€without€due€process€of€law.ÌÌà àThe€courts€should€not€permit€legitimation€proceedings€to€be€used€as€aÏvindictive€vehicle€to€disrupt€families.€€Putative€fathers€seeking€the€benefits€andÏobligations€that€flow€from€parentage€must€act€promptly€and€in€good€faith€toÏdemonstrate€their€desire€to€establish€a€parental€relationship€with€theirÏbiological€children.€€In€this€case,€Mr.€Evansððs€prompt€actions,€coupled€withÏMs.€Steelmanððs€concessions€about€the€childððs€parentage,€indicate€that€Mr.ÏEvans€is€not€seeking€to€€disrupt€an€intact€family€for€an€improper€reason.€ÏAccordingly,€I€would€find€that€he€has€standing€to€pursue€this€legitimationÏproceeding.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ