WPC' # VUNa % 0 (w@4 1 0l@ 0D 0J 0T: B 0^ 0h 0rq 0| _ 0g 0 1u} U, D3 0dQ 0@U,U >!U6_B)DC AMU*N!xdaY^N,1v~$v AOu%% 0D& D/& B&HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ "#D$%D&'()*+Ӏ 3|x6((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23   d2, 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`(Modern'dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    <  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd-7C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#)4  99   YYY FILED9X June10,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.9AppellateCourtClerk  Z !#d#)4   $       55Accordingtothepetition,Motherisaminorinthecustodyofherparents,respondentsDonnaL.HoodandRoyceAllenHood.Accordingtothemotiontodismiss,thematernalgrandparentshavebeenawardedtemporarylegalcustodyoftheminorchild,KaylaLynnHood.ThematernalgrandparentsalsoopposeVineyardsattempttolegitimatethechild.5X4 W !#d#)4   $       45T.C.A.362202(c)isacodificationofapartofSection6ofChapter988ofthePublicActsof1994,effectiveJuly1,1994. O !#d#)4   $       55Thejuvenilecourtdidnotstateitsreasoningintheorderdismissingthepetition.5X4 D !#d#)4   $       55Wedonotbelieveourholdingnecessarilyconflictswiththeholdingin IntheMatterofA(Clinev.Drew) ,735S.W.2d232(Tenn.App.1987),acaserelieduponbytheappellees.Thatcaseinvolvesverydifferentfactsfromthosenowbeforeus.Wedonotfinditnecessarytoreachtheissuesraisedbythefactualpatternin IntheMatterofA . " !#d#)4   $       55Tenn.Constit.ArticleI,Section8providesthat8 8 nomanshallbetakenorimprisoned,ordisseizedofhisfreehold,libertiesorprivileges,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinanymannerdestroyedordeprivedofhislife,libertyorproperty,butbythejudgmentofhispeersorthelawoftheland.5X  !#d#)4   $       55Tenn.Constit.ArticleXI,Section8provides:8 8 TheLegislatureshallhavenopowertosuspendanygenerallawforthebenefitofanyparticularindividual,nortopassanylawforthebenefitofindividualsinconsistentwiththegenerallawsoftheland;nortopassanylawgrantingtoanyindividualorindividualsrights,privileges,immunitie[s],orexemptionsotherthansuchasmaybe,bythesamelawextendedtoanymemberofthecommunity,whomaybeabletobringhimselfwithintheprovisionsofsuchlaw.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . )&33Xd&#33Xd#4    P 5\RA'\ћ7XXdd7INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ̛̜INTHEMATTEROFKAYLALYNN)C/ANO.03A019508JV00296HOOD,AMinor    )BLOUNTCOUNTYJUVENILECOURT      )DAVIDVINEYARD,   )ٜL8:7;+'h|`  `Lߛ      ) PetitionerAppellant, )      )      )      )v.      )HONORABLEWILLIAMTERRYDENTON,      )JUDGE      )      )      )      )HEATHERELAINEHOOD,DONNAHOOD,)andALLENHOOD,   )      ) RespondentsAppellees. )VACATEDANDREMANDED̛̜CHARLESM.CLIFFORD,Maryville,forAppellantROBERTM.COHEN,Maryville,forAppelleesCHARLESW.BURSON,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,andJENNIFERHELTONSMALL,DeputyAttorneyGeneral,GeneralCivilDivision,fortheStateofTennessee  OPINION̛           Susano,J.  Inthiscase,DavidVineyardseekstolegitimateandestablishaparentchildrelationshipwithhisallegeddaughter,KaylaLynnHood,whowasborntoHeatherElaineHood(Mother)onNovember8,1994.MotheropposesVineyardsattempttolegitimateϜthechildonthegroundthatshehasnotconsentedtothechildslegitimation. ;   כMotherandherparentsfiledamotiontodismiss,whichthejuvenilecourtgranted,holding,ineffect,thataputativefatherhasnoavenuebywhichtolegitimatehischild,absentthemothersconsent,underTennesseeslegitimationϜstatutes.Insoruling,thecourtapparentlyrelieduponT.C.A.362202(c), <   כwhichprovidesasfollows:Ӝ8 8 Nothinghereinshallbeconstruedtoauthorizeaputativefathertolegitimateachildortoexecuteanyvoluntaryacknowledgmentofpaternitywithouttheconsentofthemotherofsuchchild.̛̜Ӝ(Emphasisadded).BecauseVineyardsissuesonthisappealbringintoquestionthevalidityofthiscodesection,wedirectedthepartiestoservecopiesoftheirbriefsontheAttorneyGeneral,theHonorableCharlesW.Burson,pursuanttotheprovisionsofRule32,T.R.A.P.  GeneralBursonhasfiledawrittenresponseregardingthevalidityofT.C.A.362202(c),asitpertainstoVineyardspetitiontolegitimatehisallegedchild.Inhisresponse,hecertifiedhisconclusionthatthestatute isunconstitutionaltotheextentthatitallowsanunmarriedwomantopreventaputativefatherfromlegitimatinghisallegedbiologicalchild.Thus,theunusualpostureofthiscasepresentsus,onthepleadings,withthequestionoftheconstitutionalityofT.C.A.362202(c).  I    Ourstandardofreviewinacasesuchasthisissetforthin McClenahanv.Cooley, 806S.W.2d767,769(Tenn.1991):Ӝ̛8 8 Inlightofthefactthatthiscasewasdismissedonamotionforjudgmentonthepleadings...weareboundtotreatasfalseallallegationsoftheDefendant,themovingparty,whicharedenied,andastrueallwellpleadedallegationscontainedinthepleadingsofthePlaintiff,theopponentofthemotion.See Triggv.MiddleTenn.Elec.MembershipCorp., 533S.W.2d730,73233(Tenn.App.1975).Inotherwords,onanappealfromanorderallowingajudgmentonthepleadings,asinthiscase,allwellpleadedfactsandallreasonableinferencesdrawntherefrommustbeacceptedastrue. Trigg at733(citing Darwinv.TownofCookeville, 170Tenn.508,97S.W.2d838(1936); Rodgersv.Rodgers, 53Tenn.489Ϝ(1871)).Conclusionsoflawarenotadmittednorshouldjudgmentonthepleadingsbegrantedunlessthemovingpartyisclearlyentitledtojudgment.Id.Wereviewtheinstantcasewiththisstandardinmind.  II    ThefactsassetforthinVineyardspetitionareasfollows.ThechildwasbornoutofwedlockonNovember8,1994.Motherisanunmarriedminorinthecustodyofherparents,respondentsDonnaandAllenHood.Vineyardisthenaturalfather,andMotherandherparentshaveacknowledgedhimassuch.MotherhasallowedVineyardtovisitwithhischildsinceherbirth.Vineyardhasofferedsupportforthechild,whichhasbeenaccepted,andheisfullycapableandwillingtoprovidecontinuingsupport.Finally,Vineyarddesirestoestablishalegalparentchildrelationshipwithhisdaughter.Vineyardspetitionrequestsadeclarationthatheisthechildsbiologicalfather.HealsoseeksthesettingofanequitableamountofchildϜsupport;reasonablevisitationrights;andthathisdaughtersnamebechangedtoKaylaLynnVineyard.Inotherwords,Vineyardseekstolegitimatehischild.  TherespondentsarguethattheTennesseelegitimationϜstatutesdonotallowaputativefathertolegitimateachildwithouttheconsentofthechildsmother.Thejuvenilecourt,ostensibly =   כrelyinguponT.C.A.362202(c),agreedanddismissedthepetition.  III    ThelanguageandeffectofT.C.A.362202(c)isclear:noputativefathermaylegitimatehischildwithouttheconsentofthechildsmother,regardlessofthecircumstances.Wenowaddressthequestionofwhetherthisrulepassesconstitutionalmusterunderestablishedprinciplesofdueprocess.TheAttorneyGeneraltakesthefollowingpositiononthisquestion:Ӝ̛8 8 thatportionofthestatutewhichallowsanunmarriedwomantopreventtheputativefatherfromfilingproceedingstolegitimatehischildconstitutesadenialofdueprocessunderboththeTennesseeandUnitedStatesConstitutions...̛̜Weagree.  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexaminedtheextenttowhichtheDueProcessClauseoftheFederalConstitutionprotectsanaturalfathersbiologicalrelationshipwithhischildin Stanleyv.Illinois, 405U.S.645,92S.Ct.1208,31L.Ed.2d551(1972).In Stanley, theCourtstruckdownastatutecreatinganirrebuttablepresumptionthatallunwedfathersareunfitparents,andmandatingthatchildrenofunwedfatherswouldautomaticallybecomewardsofthestateuponthemothersdeath.TheCourtdescribedthefatherslibertyinterestinarelationshipwithhisnaturalchildrenasfollows:Ӝ̛8 8 Theprivateinteresthere,thatofamaninthechildrenhehassiredandraised,undeniablywarrantsdeferenceand,absentapowerfulcountervailinginterest,protection.Itisplainthattheinterestofaparentinthecompanionship,care,custody,andmanagementofhisorherchildren come[s]tothisCourtwithamomentumforrespectlackingwhenappealismadetolibertieswhichderivemerelyfromshiftingeconomicrelationships.̛̜   *  *  *  *8 8 Therightstoconceiveandtoraiseoneschildrenhavebeendeemed essential, Meyerv.Nebraska, 262U.S.390,399,43S.Ct.625,626,67L.Ed.1042(1923), basiccivilrightsofman, Skinnerv.Oklahoma ,316U.S.535,541,62S.Ct.1110,1113,86L.Ed.1655(1942),and [r]ightsfarmoreprecious...thanpropertyrights, Mayv.Anderson ,345U.S.528,533,73S.Ct.840,843,97L.Ed.1221(1953).̛̜ Stanley, 405U.S.at651,92S.Ct.at1212.Significantly,theCourtmadeitclearthattheserightsextendtounwedfathersaswellasthosemarried: Norhasthelawrefusedtorecognizethosefamilyrelationshipsunlegitimizedbyamarriageceremony.Id.,405U.S.at651,92S.Ct.at1213.The Stanley CourtconcludedthatӜ̛8 8 asamatterofdueprocessoflaw,Stanleywasentitledtoahearingonhisfitnessasaparentbeforehischildrenweretakenfromhim...̛̜Id.,405U.S.at649,92S.Ct.at1211.  Thenature,andboundaries,oftheparentalrightsofanunwedfatherwerefurtherexploredinthecaseof Lehrv.Robertson, 463U.S.248,103S.Ct.2985,77L.Ed.2d614(1983). Lehr recognizedandheldthatanunwedfathersconstitutionalrightsinarelationshipwithhischildareinitiallyinchoate,and,beforetheygaindueprocessprotection,mustbedevelopedthroughthefatherspursuitofsucharelationshipandhisdemonstrationofparentalresponsibilitybyofferingfinancialandemotionalsupportofhischild.TheCourtstatedthefollowinginthisregard:Ӝ̛8 8 Whenanunwedfatherdemonstratesafullcommitmenttotheresponsibilitiesofparenthoodby com[ing]forwardtoparticipateintherearingofhischild, Caban, 441U.S.,at392,99S.Ct.,at1768,hisinterestinpersonalcontactwithhischildacquiressubstantialprotectionundertheDueProcessClause.Atthatpointitmaybesaidthathe act[s]asafathertowardhischildren.      *  *  *  *8 8 Thesignificanceofthebiologicalconnectionisthatitoffersthenaturalfatheranopportunitythatnoothermalepossessestodeveloparelationshipwithhisoffspring.Ifhegraspsthatopportunityandacceptssomemeasureofresponsibilityforthechildsfuture,hemayenjoytheblessingsoftheparentchildrelationshipandmakeuniquelyvaluablecontributionstothechildsdevelopment.̛̜ Lehr, 463U.S.at26162,103S.Ct.at2993.  Tennesseejurisprudencealsorecognizesthatanunwedfatherisentitledtodueprocessprotectionofhisparentalrightsundercertaincircumstances.In1989,theCourtofAppealswasfacedwithanissuesimilartothatatbar,andwithcomparablefacts,inthecaseof InreAdoptionofHutto, 777S.W.2d353(Tenn.App.1989).In Hutto thenaturalparentsfiledcompetingpetitionsinjuvenilecourtthefatherfiledwhatamountedtoalegitimationpetition,andthemotherandherhusbandfiledapetitiontoadoptthechild.Thecourtstatedthefollowing:Ӝ̛8 8 Appellantsargue"thetrialcourtlackedauthoritytoorderthechildlegitimatedpursuanttotheadversarialcounterclaimofthenaturalfatherovertheobjectionofthemother",andinsistthat MatterofA ,735S.W.2d232(Tenn.App.1987);򛀀 Cooperv.Thompson ,710S.W.2d944(Tenn.App.1985)and Cunninghamv.Golden ,652S.W.2d910Ϝ(Tenn.App.1983)areauthoritiesfortheirposition.Thesecasesareinappositesincetheactionswere,ineffect,seekingadeclarationofillegitimacyofapresumptivelylegitimatechildhavingbeenborntoawomanwhilemarriedtoanotherman.Appellantsalsoarguethelegitimationstatutesdonotcontemplateanadversarialproceeding.Thisiscorrectinsofarastheproceedingrelatestotheissueofpaternity;however,thepartiesstipulatedFowlerwasthebiologicalfatherofthechildwhowas"notborninlawfulwedlock".Onthesefactsabiologicalparentmaypetitionthecourtforanorderoflegitimation...̛̜Id.at354.Applyingthe Lehr rulingandquotingthatcaseatlength,the Hutto courtfoundthat fromtheinception,thenaturalfatherattemptedtoassumetheroleandobligationsofaparent.Id.at355.Thecourtthereforeaffirmedthejuvenilecourtsgrantingofthefatherslegitimationpetitionanddenialoftheadoptionpetition.  Inthecaseof Hawkv.Hawk, 855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993),theSupremeCourtexaminedparentalrightsundertheTennesseeConstitutionandconcludedthatӜ̛8 8 TennesseeshistoricallystrongprotectionofparentalrightsandthereasoningoffederalϜconstitutionalcasesconvinceusthatparentalrightsconstituteafundamentallibertyinterestunderArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution.̛̀Id.at579.TheCourtnotedthatlongstandingTennesseelawholdsthat aparentisentitledtothecustody,companionship,andcareofthechild,andshouldnotbedeprivedthereofexceptbydueprocessoflaw,quotingfrom Stateexrel.Bethellv.Kilvington, 100Tenn.227,236,45S.W.433,435(1898);andthat [t]herelationswhichexistbetweenparentandchildaresacredones...Therighttothesocietyofthechildexistsinitsparents,quotingfrom InreKnott, 138Tenn.349,355,197S.W.1097,1098(1917). Hawk at57778.StrikingdowntheTennesseeGrandparentsVisitationActasviolativeoftheseparentalrights,the Hawk Courtheld:Ӝ̛8 8 WeholdthatArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitutionprotectstheprivacyinterestoftheseparentsintheirchildrearingdecisions,solongastheirdecisionsdonotsubstantiallyendangerthewelfareoftheirchildren.Absentsomeharmtothechild,wefindthatthestatelacksasufficientlycompellingjustificationforinterferingwiththisfundamentalright.̛̜Id.at582.  Oneyearafter Hawk, theSupremeCourtrevisitedtheparentalrightsissue,andafterengaginginbothfederalandstateconstitutionalanalysis,foundthattheconstitutionalrightsenumeratedin Hawk extendtounwedfathers.TheCourtstated:Ӝ̛8 8 Parents,includingparentsofchildrenbornoutofwedlock,haveafundamentallibertyinterestinthecareandcustodyoftheirchildrenunderboththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutions. Stanleyv.Illinois ,405U.S.645,92S.Ct.1208,31L.Ed.2d551(1972); Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993).However,thisrightisnotabsoluteandtheStatemayinterferewithparentalrightsifthereisacompellingStateinterest.   *  *  *  *8 8 TheNales'positionthatthisCourtin Hawk limitedtheprotectionofparentalrightsto"anintact,nuclearfamilywithfitparents"isuntenable.Thenaturalfatherprevailedin InreAdoptionofHutto ,supra,inwhichthecontestwasbetweenthefather,whohadfiledapetitionforlegitimation,andthenaturalmotherandherhusband,whohadfiledajointpetitiontoadopt.ThisCourtjoinstheCourtofAppeals,which,inthiscase,stated:8 8 8 NoreasonoccurstothisCourtwhyafitparentshouldbedeniedtheprivilegeofparenthoodmerelybecauseofbirthoutofwedlock.Aspreviouslystated,thedenialofprivilegeofparenthoodisbaseduponterminationforunfitness.  ̛̜ Nalev.Robertson, 871S.W.2d674,678&680(Tenn.1994).  Thecasesdiscussedaboveclearlydemonstratethatinthepresentcase,petitionerVineyardhasaconstitutionallyprotectedrighttoattempttocreatealegalparentchildrelationshipwithhisnaturaldaughter.Thelogicalavenuethroughwhichhemayaccomplishthisisbyfilingapetitiontolegitimatehischild.Thestatuteinquestion,T.C.A.362202(c),grantsthemotherabsolutevetopowertopreventaputativefatherfromevenattemptingtolegitimate,andtherebyestablishalegalrelationship,withhischild.Themothermaywithholdherconsentforanyornoreason.Absentalegitimationproceeding,aputativefatheris,intheeyesofthelaw,astrangertohisownchild,unabletoattempttodevelophisinchoateconstitutionalrightsbydemonstratingacommitmenttofatherhood.Underestablishedprinciplesofdueprocess,thestatecannotmandatethisresultwithoutdemonstratingacompellinginterest.Thisithasfailedtodo.TheAttorneyGeneralhasacknowledgedasmuch.  IV    Wefindthatthestatuteisconstitutionallyinfirmunderequalprotectionprinciplesaswell.TheAttorneyGeneralconcurswiththisconclusion,citing Cabanv.Mohammed, 441U.S.380,99S.Ct.1760,60L.Ed.2d297(1979)ashisanalyticalbasis.The Caban Courtwaspresentedwithastatuteauthorizinganunwedmothertoblocktheadoptionofherchildbywithholdingconsent,butgivingtheunwedfather nosimilarcontroloverthefateofhischild,evenwhenhisparentalrelationshipissubstantial.Id.,441U.S.at38687,99S.Ct.at1765.  TheCourtfoundit clearthat[thestatute]treatsunmarriedparentsdifferentlyaccordingtotheirsex.Id.,441U.S.at388,99S.Ct.at1766.Rejectingthestatescontentionthatthestatuteboreasubstantialrelationtotheinterestinprovidingadoptivehomesforillegitimatechildren,theCourtsaidthefollowing:Ӝ̛8 8 Insum,webelievethat[thestatute]isanotherexampleof overbroadgeneralizationsingenderbasedclassifications...TheeffectofNewYorksclassificationistodiscriminateagainstunwedfathersevenwhentheiridentityisknownandtheyhavemanifestedasignificantpaternalinterestinthechild.̛̜Id.,441U.S.at394,99S.Ct.at1769[citationsomitted].  Thestatuteinthepresentcaseisanalogoustothestatutein Caban inthatitgivestheunwedmothercertainauthority,i.e.,theauthoritytoblockalegitimationpetition,butaffordstheunwedfathernosuchopportunity.Wefinditcreatesanimpropergenderbasedclassificationwithoutsubstantiallyfurtheringanimportantgovernmentalobjective,andthusviolatestheEqualProtectionClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,undertheprinciplessetforthin Caban . >   כ  TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasconsistentlyheldthattwoprovisionsofourTennesseeConstitution,ArticleI,Section8(the lawofthelandclause), ?   כandArticleXI,Section8, @   conferthesameprotectionsasdoestheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution. Brownv.CampbellCountyBd.ofEd., 915S.W.2d407,413(Tenn.1995); Davisv.State, 912S.W.2d689,696(Tenn.1995); Statev.Tester, 879S.W.2d823,82728(Tenn.1994); TennesseeSmallSchoolSystemsv.McWherter, 851S.W.2d139,152(Tenn.1993).ConsequentlyweholdthestatuteunconstitutionalundertheseTennesseeconstitutionalprovisionsaswell.  Fortheaforementionedreasons,weholdunconstitutionalthatpartofT.C.A.362202(c)whichpurportstodisallowaputativefatherfromattemptingtolegitimatehischildwithoutthemothersconsent,onbothdueprocessandequalprotectiongrounds.TheorderofthejuvenilecourtdismissingVineyardspetitionisvacated.Thiscaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary,consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedandassessedtotheappellees.       _____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:____________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜____________________________DonT.McMurray,J.