ÿWPC+ …# VU:a %› 0(¡wÉ Ù 0lá 0DM 4‘ b ¥ 0J± û 0T 0^^ 0h¼ 0r$ 0|– 0† 0˜ 1u( 0d U *B)+DCT AM—úä€Þ B^G{v~ÂvÓ@ D3 0@F AO†ÆÕ 0D› D/ß B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡Ó€  #((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóDÒ - ù -2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x 2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌOctober€2,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSee€òòJohnson€v.€Studley„Prestonóó,€812€P.2d€1216€(Idaho€1991);€òòDurr€v.€Blueóó,€454€So.2dÏ315€(La.€Ct.€App.€1984);€Ind.€Code€€31„6„6.1„2(2)€Supp.€1995;€Iowa€Code€Ann.€ðð€600€B.8€(WestÏ1996).Ì d =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€are€aware€that€the€Eastern€Section€of€this€court€declared€subsection€(c)Ïunconstitutional€as€applied€to€fathers€seeking€to€legitimate€children€born€to€unmarried€mothers.€€SeeÏòòVineyard›€v.€Hoodóó,€œ€Appeal€No.€03„A„01„9508„JV„00296€(Eastern€Section,€Court€of€Appeals,€filedÏJune€10,€1996).›€€But€the€case€œdoes€not€affect€this€one,€as€we€are€dealing€only€with€subsection€(a)€ofÏthe€statute.›ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€w´XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑMICHAEL€SCOTT€EVANS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„JV„00508ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€JuvenileÌKAREN€MARIE€BISSON€STEELMAN,à à)à àNo.€9419„13267Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€JUVENILE€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h| á` ç `€€LßÌTHE€HONORABLE€ANDREW€J.€SHOOKHOFF,€JUDGEÌÌÌCLARK€LEE€SHAWÌ2525€Lebanon€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€37214ÌÌSTEVEN€M.€MOOREÌ30€Music€Square€West,€Suite€301ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37203Ìà àAttorneys€for€Petitioner/AppellantÌÌPHILLIP€W.€DUERÌMARY€ARLINE€EVANSÌ214€Third€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorneys€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌJENNIFER€HELTON€SMALLÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌ1510€Parkway€TowersÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà àIntervenorÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌSEPARATE€ÌCONCURRING€OPINION:ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌÌSEPARATEÌDISSENTING€OPINION:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€we€are€asked€to€re„visit€the€question€of€whether€a€manÏwho€fathers€a€child€by€a€married€woman€may€legitimate€the€child.€€The€DavidsonÏCounty€Juvenile€Court€held€that€the€legitimation€statute€allowing€a€putative€fatherÏto€legitimate€a€child€ð ðnot€born€in€lawful€wedlockðð€applied€only€to€children€born€toÏunmarried€women.€€If€that€interpretation€holds,€the€appellant€attacks€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€statute€on€due€process€and€equal€protection€grounds.€€WeÏaffirm€the€lower€courtððs€interpretation€of€the€statute€and€reject€the€appellantððsÏcontention€that€the€statute€is€constitutionally€defective.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àOn€December€13,€1994,€Michael€Scott€Evans€filed€a€petition€in€theÏJuvenile€Court€of€Davidson€County€seeking€to€legitimate€a€male€child€born€toÏKaren€Marie€Bisson€Steelman€on€November€24,€1994.€€The€petition€alleged€thatÏMr.€Evans€is€the€father€of€the€child€and€that€conception€occurred€while€Mrs.ÏSteelman€was€married€to€but€separated€from€her€husband,€Jamie€Steelman.ÌÌà àà àMrs.€Steelman€filed€an€answer€denying€that€Mr.€Evans€is€the€childððsÏfather€and€raising€the€affirmative€defense€of€Mr.€Evansðð€standing€to€prosecute€theÏaction€for€legitimation.€€The€juvenile€judge€dismissed€Mr.€Evansðð€petition,€rulingÏthat€under€the€current€law€in€Tennessee€he€had€no€standing€to€legitimate€theÏchild.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àProceedings€to€legitimate€children€were€unknown€at€common€law.€€Ïð ðIn€the€absence€of€statutory€authorization,€an€illegitimate€child€cannot€beÏlegitimated€by€judicial€proceedings.ðð€€See€14€C.J.S.€òòChildren€Out„of„Wedlockóó€ððÏ2B€(1991).€€€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó,€652€S.W.2d€910€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€InÏTennessee,€the€statutory€basis€for€such€proceedings€is€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„2„202:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(a)à àAn€application€to€legitimate€a€child€not€bornÏin€lawful€wedlock€is€made€by€petition,€in€writing,€signed€byÏthe€person€wishing€to€legitimate€such€child,€and€settingÏforth€the€reasons€therefor€and€the€state€and€date€of€theÏchildððs€birth.ÌÌà à(b)à àIn€addition€to€the€provisions€of€subsectionÏ(a),€a€person€wishing€to€legitimate€a€child€may€obtain€anÏorder€of€legitimation€for€a€child€born€to€an€unmarriedÏwoman€by€filing€with€the€court€a€certified€copy€or€aÏduplicate€original€of€the€acknowledgment€of€paternity€asÏprescribed€under€ðð€24„7„118,€ðð€68„3„203(g),€ðð€68„3„302,Ïor€ðð€68„3„305(b).€€Further,€a€duplicate€original€of€theÏvoluntary€acknowledgment€of€paternity€filed€with€theÏjuvenile€court€by€a€birthing€institution€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€ðð€68„3„302(e)€shall€be€the€basis€for€the€entryÏof€an€order€of€legitimation€by€the€court.€€Subject€to€theÏprovisions€of€ðð€24„7„118,€the€court€shall€enter€an€order€ofÏlegitimation€upon€the€filing€of€the€voluntaryÏacknowledgment€of€paternity€in€either€of€the€aboveÏsituations.ÌÌà à(c)à àNothing€herein€shall€be€construed€toÏauthorize€a€putative€father€to€legitimate€a€child€or€toÏexecute€any€voluntary€acknowledgment€of€paternityÏwithout€the€consent€of€the€mother€of€such€child.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àIn€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó,€652€S.W.2d€910€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€thisÏcourt€interpreted€the€phrase,€ð ðchild€not€born€in€lawful€wedlock,ðð€in€section€(a),€theÏonly€section€that€existed€at€the€time,€to€mean€a€child€born€to€an€unmarried€woman.€ÏIn€òòCooper€v.€Thompsonóó,€710€S.W.2d€944€(Tenn.€App.€1985),€this€court€followedÏthe€ruling€in€òòCunninghamóó€and€said,€ð ðThe€legitimation€statutes€are€for€theÏprotection€of€the€child,€and€are€not€for€the€purpose€of€allowing€parents,€biologicalÍor€otherwise,€to€stake€out€claims€to€the€child.ðð€€710€S.W.2d€at€946.€€In€bothÏopinions€the€members€of€the€court€expressed€a€strong€belief€that€a€restrictiveÏinterpretation€was€necessary€to€preserve€the€integrity€of€existing€families.ÌÌà àà àWere€we€writing€on€a€clean€slate€we€might€interpret€the€statuteÏdifferently.€€We€think€it€is€just€as€logical€to€hold€that€the€phrase€ð ðnot€born€in€lawfulÏwedlockðð€means€any€child€whose€parents€were€not€married€to€each€other.€€StatesÏwith€statutes€using€similar€language€have€extended€the€right€to€begin€legitimationÏproceedings€to€the€putative€father€even€when€the€mother€is€married€to€anotherÏman.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€It€also€seems€logical€that€when€a€woman€is€separated€from€her€husbandÏand€is€living€with€another€man€there€is€no€intact€family€to€be€preserved.ÌÌà àà àBut,€ð ðthe€legislature€is€presumed€to€know€the€interpretation€whichÏcourts€make€of€its€enactments.ðð€€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774€(Tenn.Ï1974).€Thus,€when€the€legislature€amended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202€in€1992,Ïand€again€in€1994,€it€presumably€knew€of€the€interpretation€given€the€statute€inÏòòCunninghamóó€and€òòCooperóó.€€Nevertheless,€it€did€not€change€the€language€of€theÏstatute,€and€the€additional€sections€keep€its€scope€very€narrow.€€Subsection€(b)Ïprovides€an€informal€procedure€for€obtaining€an€order€of€legitimation€of€a€childÍborn€to€an€òòunmarriedóó€woman,€and,€subsection€(c)€underscores€the€restrictionsÏplaced€on€putative€fathers€by€making€the€motherððs€consent€a€requirement€in€anyÏlegitimation€proceeding.× ƒ& ××  ×€€We€are€persuaded,€therefore,€that€the€legislatureÏintended€to€restrict€the€operation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202€to€casesÏinvolving€children€born€to€unmarried€mothers.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àBefore€we€move€to€the€question€of€the€statuteððs€constitutionality,Ïthere€are€two€points€raised€in€the€dissent€that€should€be€addressed.ÌÌà àà àFirst€is€the€dissentððs€view€that€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€and€òòCooper€v.ÏThompsonóó€òò€óólack€precedential€value€because€they€are€only€Court€of€AppealsÏopinions.€€Coming€from€a€Court€of€Appeals€Judge€that€is€a€surprising€view;€butÏbeyond€that,€it€simply€does€not€withstand€scrutiny.€€The€dissent€cites€òòSwift€v.€Kirbyóó,Ï737€S.W.2d€271€(Tenn.€1987)€for€the€proposition€that€until€the€Supreme€Court€hasÏspoken€on€a€point€of€law€there€is€no€binding€precedent.€€Then€the€dissentÍdiscusses€unpublished€opinions,€which€we€find€to€be€irrelevant€to€the€point€underÏconsideration.òòÌÌà àà àCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€and€òòCooper€v.€Thompsonóó€are€bothÏòòpublishedóó€opinions€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€ItÏis€true€that€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòSwift€v.€Kirbyóó€said,€ð ðThis€Court€is€not€committedÏto€all€of€the€views€expressed€in€an€opinion€of€the€intermediate€appellate€courtsÏwhen€we€deny€discretionary€review.ðð€€737€S.W.2d€at€277€(Tenn.€1987).€€But€whereÏthe€interpretation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202(a)€was€the€òòonlyóó€issue€decided€inÏòòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€and€was€the€òòonly€substantiveóó€issue€decided€in€òòCooper€v.ÏThompsonóó,€an€argument€that€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€approve€theÏinterpretation€made€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€cannot€be€made.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€may€change€its€mind,€but€until€it€does,€those€cases€should€be€followed.ÌÌà àà àSecond,€we€are€intrigued€by€the€dissentððs€assertion€that€there€is€noÏsupport€for€the€notion€that€the€legislature€has€somehow€approved€the€result€inÏòòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó.€€As€the€basis€for€that€position€the€dissent€cites€aÏdissenting€opinion€in€òòJohnson€v.€Transportation€Agencyóó,€480€U.S.€616,€107€S.Ct.Ï1442€(1987),€€(which€only€three€members€of€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏjoined)€and€ignores€the€specific€holdings€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€to€theÏcontrary.€€We€cited€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774€(1977),€in€which€theÏCourt€said:€€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€legislature€is€presumed€to€know€theÏinterpretation€which€courts€make€of€its€enactments;€the€factÏthat€the€legislature€has€not€expressed€disapproval€of€aÏjudicial€construction€of€a€statute€is€persuasive€evidence€ofÏlegislative€adoption€of€the€judicial€construction,€especiallyÏwhere€the€law€is€amended€in€other€particulars,€or€whereÏthe€statute€is€reenacted€without€change€in€the€partÏconstrued.€€(Citations€omitted.)ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓ559€S.W.2d€at€776.ÌÌà àà àWe€would€only€add€that€òòHargrove€v.€Newsomeóó,€225€Tenn.€462,€470ÏS.W.2d€348€(1971)(where€the€Supreme€Court€said€the€presumption€wasÏð ðconclusiveðð);€òòMcKinney€v.€Hardwick€Clothes,€Inc.óó,€217€Tenn.€457,€398€S.W.2dÏ265€(1966);€òòSoutheastern€Aviation,€Inc.€v.€Hurdóó,€209€Tenn.€639,€355€S.W.2d€436Ï(Tenn.€1962);€andòò€New€England€Mutual€Life€Insurance€Co.€v.€Reeceóó,€169€Tenn.Ï84,€83€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1935)(where€the€presumption€was€applied€to€anÏadministrative€interpretation),€could€have€been€cited€for€the€same€proposition.€ÌÌà àà àPerhaps€the€most€telling€indication€that€the€legislature€has€approvedÏthe€result€in€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó,€supra,€can€be€found€in€the€legislative€historyÏof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„2„202€subsequent€to€the€courtððs€decisions€in€bothÏòòCunninghamóó€and€òòCooperóó.€€Although€Section€(a)€contains€the€term€ð ða€child€notÏborn€in€lawful€wedlock,ðð€the€legislature€did€not€choose€to€change€or€re„define€thatÏterm,€or€any€part€of€that€section.€€Section€(b)€provides€a€new€procedure€toÏlegitimate€a€child,€but€by€its€terms€is€limited€only€to€children€ð ðborn€to€an€unmarriedÍwoman.ðð€€Section€(c)€does€not€directly€refer€to€the€marital€status€of€the€mtoher€ofÏthe€child€whose€legitimation€is€sought,€but€it€limits€the€putative€fatherððs€right€byÏrequiring€the€consent€of€the€mother.ÌÌà àà àWe€presume€that€the€legislature€had€the€opportunity€to€deal€with€theÏcourtððs€holding€in€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó€at€the€time€the€amendments€were€beingÏdebated.€€It€chose€instead€to€enact€some€substantial€changes€in€the€legitimationÏprocess€without€touching€at€all€on€the€issue€raised€in€that€case.à àà àÌÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àOur€interpretation€of€the€statute€requires€us€to€face€the€question€ofÏwhether€the€state€can,€consistent€with€due€process€and€equal€protection,€pass€anÏact€giving€putative€fathers€the€right€to€legitimate€children€born€to€unmarriedÏwomen€while€withholding€that€right€when€the€mother€is€a€married€woman.ÌÌà@ àò òa.€€Due€Processó óÌÌà àà àThe€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€federal€constitution€and€Article€I€ððÏ6€of€the€state€constitution€prohibit€the€state€from€taking€a€citizenððs€life,€liberty,€orÏproperty€without€due€process€of€law.€€A€parent„child€relationship€may€rise€to€theÍlevel€of€a€protected€interest,€because€it€is€viewed€as€an€interest€in€liberty.€€òòLehr€v.ÏRobertsonóó,€463€U.S.€248,€103€S.Ct.€2985,€77€L.Ed.2d€614€(1983);€òòNale€v.ÏRobertsonóó,€871€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1994).€The€right€to€raise€a€child€is€also€a€rightÏof€privacy€guaranteed€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòHawk€v.€Hawkóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ573€(Tenn.€1993).€€But€constitutional€protection€does€not€result€from€the€ð ðmereÏexistence€of€a€biological€link;ðð€an€unwed€father€must€demonstrate€a€ð ðfullÏcommitment€to€the€responsibilities€of€parenthoodðð€before€ð ðhis€interest€in€personalÏcontact€with€his€child€acquires€substantial€protection€under€the€Due€ProcessÏclause.ðð€€òòLehr€v.€Robertson,óó€463€U.S.€at€261,€103€S.Ct.€at€2993,€77€L.Ed.€at€626.ÌÌà àà àWhether€Mr.€Evansðð€interest€has€risen€to€the€level€where€it€acquiresÏconstitutional€protection€has€not€been€determined.€€For€the€purpose€of€thisÏargument,€we€assume€that€it€has.€€Nevertheless,€the€short€answer€to€the€dueÏprocess€argument€is€that€the€statute€does€not€deprive€him€of€anything.€€At€commonÏlaw€he€had€no€right€to€legitimate€the€child,€and€this€state€has€never€recognizedÏthat€right€except€by€the€statute€in€question.€€The€statute€creates€rights€rather€thanÏtaking€them€away,€and€should€not€be€judged€defective€on€due€process€grounds.€ÏWe€think€Mr.€Evansðð€case€boils€down€to€a€question€of€whether€his€rights€to€equalÏprotection€have€been€violated€by€the€state€giving€the€right€to€legitimate€a€child€to€aÏman€who€fathers€a€child€by€an€unmarried€woman€while€denying€that€right€to€menÏwhose€children€are€the€product€of€a€liason€with€another€manððs€wife.à àà àÌÌà@ àò òb.€€Equal€Protectionó óÌÌà àà àThe€right€to€equal€protection€under€the€law,€as€preserved€by€bothÏstate€and€federal€constitutions,€guarantees€ð ðequal€privileges€and€immunities€forÏall€those€similarly€situated.ðð€€òòTennessee€Small€Schools€v.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2dÏ139,€152€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€obverse€of€that€proposition€is€a€recognition€thatÏð ðthings€which€are€different€in€fact€or€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€constitutionÏto€be€treated€the€same.òò€€Id.óó€851€S.W.2d€at€153.€€See€also€òòMCIÏTelecommunications€Corp.€v.€Taylor,óó€914€S.W.2d€519€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àIn€a€case€brought€as€a€paternity€action€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„2„103€(but€treated€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€as€a€legitimation€action)€this€courtÏheld€that€where€the€child€was€born€during€the€motherððs€marriage€to€another€manÏthe€stateððs€interest€in€preserving€family€stability€overrode€any€constitutionallyÏcognizable€interest€of€the€putative€father.€€òòIn€the€Matter€of€ð ðAððóó,€735€S.W.2d€232Ï(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€The€court€quoted€with€approval€from€òòPetitioner€F.€v.ÏRespondent€R.óó,€430€A.2d€1075€(Del.€1981):ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌÌ[I]n€this€case,€however,€there€exists€the€very€powerfulÏcountervailing€public€interest€in€promoting€the€maritalÏrelationship,€preserving€intact€an€existing€family€unit,€andÏprotecting€the€minor€child€from€confusion,€torn€affection,Ïand€the€lifelong€stigma€of€illegitimacy.€€Thus,€evenÏassuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€putative€father€has€aÍconstitutionally€cognizable€interest,€that€interest€would€beÏoutweighed€by€the€competing€public€interest€and€publicÏpolicy€in€this€case,€and€he€must€be€denied€judicial€access.ÓÓÌÒ € ÒÒ „ Ò735€S.W.2d€at€238,€430€A.2d€at€1079.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòMatter€of€ð ðAððóó,€this€court€also€rejected€the€putative€fatherððsÏargument€that€the€paternity€statute€violated€his€right€to€equal€protection€by€givingÏthe€right€to€file€a€petition€to€the€mother€and€not€to€him.€€We€found€that€the€putativeÏfather€was€not€in€the€same€category€or€circumstances€as€those€within€the€family.€ÏWe€think€that€a€person€seeking€to€legitimate€a€child€born€to€a€married€woman€isÏalso€in€a€fundamentally€different€position€from€a€man€seeking€to€legitimate€a€childÏborn€to€an€unmarried€woman.€€The€stateððs€interest€in€preserving€the€family€justifiesÏthe€stateððs€decision€to€give€the€right€of€legitimation€to€one€and€not€the€other.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Juvenile€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedingsÏnecessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌSEPARATE€CONCURRING€OPINIONÌÌÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌSEPARATE€DISSENTING€OPINIONÌÌÇÑ  ÑÔ% € Ô