WPC  E]*? Iz_xCPǫ[J(.^IUsk L53M8_ tvK+޿ %ȱ NvEHR<fT<4.Fl PHedKOm_ҁKC|U/yS)$k0!yȺ)D5Th?iDG^} !SE*d,42v`<iӪAxFnTO2,Ri,nb-F8ufyhLv+ý!H_c&x|q/_{xH.ztڻ%R-`hZ[{;A$sgT9kzܹDRenZ M@~$L]OznR=˕6tjs>NP/MYUq-cp ;!pKt*rbWUtQ\>±#ZH# UN %I 0(OUFwUPUF wLS4 0 l 0 D UF@ Q UF % UFBUFFaYUFUFUF%ZUFPUFcUF AQG 0D^ 0D D/ 0D BYv< B? D3\ AU:8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0Kr r r r r D+ HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<Q 9Z .Courier New Regular&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular<: 9Z .Courier New Regular lmDnDopqDrsDtuvӀy&************3|x  $    3    XXXXXXSeeCompilersnotestoT.C.A.366306(Supp.1998).((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular G  $    1    XXXXXXAtthehearingbelow,atranscriptofwhichisintherecord, P  McLaughlinalsoarguedthatthetrialcourtdidnothavestatutoryjurisdictiontoentertainapetitionforgrandparentsvisitation.Thetrialcourtdidnotaddressthisargument,anditisnotadvancedasanissuebeforeus.Sincethisissueisnotassertedonthisappealandhasnotbeenbriefedbytheparties,wehaveignoredit.SeeRule13(b),T.R.A.P.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    2    XXXXXXWhilethetrialcourtsorderdoesnotstateareasonfordismissing P  Grandmotherspetition,itisclearfromthetranscriptofthehearingonthemotiontodismissthatthecourtsdecisionwasbaseduponMcLaughlinsmainargument,i.e.,thatthelanguageofthestatutedoesnotapplyto `  grandparentsvisitationwithachildbornoutofwedlock.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    4    XXXXXXSee,e.g.,T.C.A.364102(Supp.1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    7    XXXXXXThepartiesdonotraiseanyconstitutionalissuesonthisappeal. W  $    6    XXXXXXOurresolutionoftheissuebeforeusonappealdoesnotrequireusto P  determinewhethersubsection(a)(1),(a)(3),and(a)(4)can,inanappropriatecase,applytochildrenbornoutofwedlock.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular  $    8    XXXXXXSee Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573,576n.1(Tenn.1993).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    2    XXXXXXWhilethetrialcourtsorderdoesnotstateareasonfordismissing P  Grandmotherspetition,itisclearfromthetranscriptofthehearingonthemotiontodismissthatthecourtsdecisionwasbaseduponMcLaughlinsmainargument,i.e.,thatthelanguageofthestatutedoesnotapplyto `  grandparentsvisitationwithachildbornoutofwedlock.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular F  $    1    XXXXXXAtthehearingbelow,atranscriptofwhichisintherecord, P  McLaughlinalsoarguedthatthetrialcourtdidnothavestatutoryjurisdictiontoentertainapetitionforgrandparentsvisitation.Thetrialcourtdidnotaddressthisargumentanditisnotadvancedasanissuebeforeus.Sincethisissueisnotassertedonthisappealandhasnotbeenbriefedbytheparties,wehaveignoredit.SeeRule13(b),T.R.A.P.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular   $    5    !XXXX!X!XT.C.A.366306(b)(1)(Supp.1998)addressestheissueof P  grandparentsvisitationwhenarelativeorstepparenthasadoptedthechildwithwhomthepetitionerseekstovisit.SeealsoT.C.A.366307(Supp.  ` 1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular#$'%&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd(3$ !  P PdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 $"  .Xi# XXX.6Y  X.Xi#   Ad FILED.Xi# X .6Y  August2,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh  d++++'dxd)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK,cAZ"Arial Regular( $ Figure  1  'dxd !  vvP XXXX7XXdd7TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tvr"*,<,(j 8` `@EQ ` 8ttxPP  rvvvt"*,>.*jx` `@E ` 8ttxPP tߛ@| | INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@$ATNASHVILLE̜SHANNONREAROBERTS, h     )C/ANO.01A019812JV00631 *    `     h     )   ` Plaintiff, h     )      `     h     )v.   `     h     ) 2     `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHEXҜCREIGMcLAUGHLIN,   h     )DAVIDSONCOUNTYJUVENILECOURT   X_   `     h     )   ` DefendantAppellee,    ) 6    `     h     )   `     h     )   `     h     )JANICEROBERTS,   h     )     `     h     )   ` InterveningPetitioner  )HONORABLEBETTYADAMSGREEN, :    ` Appellant. h     )JUDGE ` ForAppellant    h     ForAppellee "> JOEF.GILLESPIE,JR. h     JAMESROBINMcKINNEY,JR. :$ МJoelton,Tennessee   h     Nashville,Tennessee %  @$XXXX m XXOPINION p   mXX  pԈ F3(1 AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED h      p      x Susano,J.  ^:09      ` Thiscaseoriginatedasapaternityaction.ShannonReaRoberts( Ms.Roberts)soughttoestablishthatCreigϜMcLaughlin( McLaughlin)wasthefatherofherchild,DylanDanielsRoberts( Dylan)(DOB:February14,1997).ThepartofthecasenowbeforeusconcernsthepetitiontointervenefiledinthatproceedingbyJaniceRoberts( Grandmother),whoisthemotherofShannonReaRobertsandthegrandmotherofDylan.Inherpetition,Grandmotherseekscourtordered reasonablevisitationrightswithDylan.McLaughlinmovedtodismissGrandmotherspetition,relyingonRule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P.,andassertingthatthepetition fail[s]tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.jjjj  #  1      כ Id .Thetrialcourtgranted d McLaughlinsmotion,findingjjjj  #  2      ׀thatT.C.A.366306(Supp.1998) 0 doesnotauthorizeanawardofgrandparentsvisitationundertheundisputedmaterialfactsofthiscase.Grandmotherappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourterredindismissingherpetition.Weaffirm.   ` Inthepaternityaction,McLaughlinfiledananswerinwhichheadmittedthathewasDylansfather.Subsequently,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdecreeingthechildspaternity.Atalatertime,Ms.RobertsandMcLaughlinwereawardedDylansjointcustody.ThetrialcourtalsodecreedthatDylanwould 8/$, livewithhismotherandthatMcLaughlinwouldhavecertainspecifiedvisitationrights.Hewasorderedtopaychildsupport.   ` Whiletherearedisputedfactsintherecord,wefindthatthosefactsarenotmaterialtoourresolutionofthisappeal.Thematerialfactsarenotindispute:(1)DylanisthenaturalchildofMs.RobertsandMcLaughlin;(2)GrandmotheristhematernalgrandmotherofDylan;and(3)Ms.RobertsandMcLaughlinarenotnow,andneverhavebeen,married.WhiletheunwedrelationshipofDylansparentsdoesnotappearonthefaceofGrandmotherspetition,thatfactisclearandundisputedfrommaterialintherecord outsidethepleading.Rule12.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Hencewewilltreatthetrialcourtsorderasoneforsummaryjudgment,whichwewillreviewdenovowithno !h presumptionofcorrectness.SeeRules12.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,and p#  13(d),T.R.A.P.Seealso Hembreev.State ,925S.W.2d513,515 (%  (Tenn.1996).   ` ThestatuteuponwhichGrandmothermustanddoesrelyisT.C.A.366306(Supp.1998).ThatstatuteisacodificationofpartofChapter503ofthePublicActsof1997,ϜwhichPublicChapterlbecamelmwasmeffectiveJuly23,1997.   %  3      ׀As P/%, pertinenthere,T.C.A.366306(Supp.1998)providesasfollows:  8 ` (a)If: ` `    6,5   8 ` (1)Eitherthefatherormotherofanunmarried minorchildisdeceased; ` `    8 ` (2)Thechildsfatherandmotheraredivorcedorlegallyseparated; ` `  Л  8 ` (3)Thechildsfatherormotherhasbeenmissingfornotlessthansix(6)months;or ` `    8 ` (4)Thecourtofanotherstatehasorderedgrandparentvisitation; ` `    8 ` then,theparentsofsuchdeceasedpersonortheparentsofeitherofsuchdivorcedorseparatedpersonsortheparentsofthemissingpersonmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringitsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightsareinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild,basedonthefactorsin366307(d)(2). ` `  @XX%***Wemustdecideifthisstatuteauthorizescourtorderedgrandparentsvisitationunderthecircumstancesofthiscase.   ` Ininterpretingastatute,wemust ascertainandgiveeffecttotheintentionandpurposeofthelegislature. Tuggle %! v.AllrightParkingSystems,Inc .,922S.W.2d105,107(Tenn. 'b# 1996).Wefulfillthisobligationbygivingeffecttothe naturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused[bythelegislature],withoutaforcedorsubtleconstructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage. Id .Ifthe .2$+ languageisclear,ourdutyislikewiseclear:weareto obeyit. Id .nn(quotingfrom Millerv.Childress ,21Tenn.(2Hum.) 1'/ 320,32122(1841)).   ` Thestatuteunderdiscussion,byomission,clearlylimitsthosesituationsinwhichagrandparentcanattemptto 8z.7 establishhisorherdcourtordereddentitlementtoecourtorderedevisitationwithagrandchild.Forexample,thestatutemakesnospecificmentionofagrandparentsrighttovisitationwithrespecttothechildofanintacttwoparentfamily.ThisomissionmaywellbeinresponsetothebasicholdingoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993).Inthatcase,the \  МHighCourtrebuffedgrandparentseffortstocompellivingtogether,married,fitparentstopermitthegrandparentstovisitwiththeirgrandchildren. Id .at577.Inanyevent,the   statuteclearlydoesnotapplytoagrandparentspetitiontocompelvisitationwiththeoffspringoflivingtogether,marriedparents.Fromthisitcanbeseenthatthelegislaturedidnotintendtoincludeallgrandparentswithintheambitofthe P statutesreach.   ` AswereadT.C.A.366306,itdoesnotapplybroadlytoall󛀜grandparentsofchildrenbornoutofwedlock.Ascanbe \%   seen,thestatutedoesnotaddresssuchchildrenasagroup.Aspertinenthere,thestatuteisclearlylimitedtothefollowingsituations:whereoneoftheparentsisdeceased;wheretheparentsaredivorcedorlegallyseparated;  %  4      ׀whereoneofthe ,!( parents hasbeenmissingfornotlessthansix(6)months;andwhereanotherstatehasorderedgrandparentvisitation. H  %  5      oT.C.A. p/ %, 366306(a)(Supp.1998).o񛀀Noneofthesefactualscenariosare presentintheinstantcase.Inotherwords,Grandmotherinthis 2x(0 casecannotbringherfactualpatternwithinT.C.A.366306(a)(1),(a)(2),(a)(3),or(a)(4).  %  6      כ       ` Grandmotherurgesustofindthatthe legallyseparatedconceptembodiedinT.C.A.366306(a)(2)(Supp.1998)appliestonevermarriedparentswhoarenotlivingtogether.Wefindthistobeastrainedconstructionofthelanguageemployedbythelegislatureand,hence,onethatwecannotadopt. Tuggle ,922S.W.2dat107. Legallyseparatedis `  aconceptthathaslongbeenappliedinthelawtomarriedϜindividualswhoarelivingapartfromoneanother.Ontheotherhand,theuseoftheword legallyisparticularlyforeigntothelanguagenormallyemployedwhendiscussingnevermarriedtoeachotherpartieswhodonotlivetogether.Infact,itseemstousthattheterminology legallyseparated,nevermarried ! Мpartiesisanoxymoron.ooooWedonotbelievethatthelegislature #@ wouldutilizesuchnonsensicallanguagetoexpresswhatisessentiallyaverysimpleandeasilyexpressedconcepttheparentsofchildrenbornoutofwedlockwhoarenotlivingtogetherp.Hpq;hqadthelegislatureintendedtocoversuchchildren,itcouldhavedonesowitheaseandinunmistakablelanguage.Wealsobelievethatitissignificantthatthelegislature,inT.C.A.366306(a)(2),chosetocouplethe divorcedconceptwiththe legallyseparatedconcept.ThisisstillfurtherevidencethatthelegislatureintendedtolimittheambitofT.C.A.366306(a)(2)(Supp.1998)tothechildrenofparentswhohadbeenorweremarried. 5+4 Ї   ` HavingdecidedthatthelegislaturedidnotintendfortherelevantstatutoryschemetoextendtoGrandmotherssituationinthiscase,ourdutyisclearwemustobeythestatute.ItisnotforustosaywhethertheomissionofGrandmothersfactualpatternisorisnotawiseone.Theestablishmentofpublicpolicyisnotourprerogative;  %  7      ׀itis \  primarilyfortheGeneralAssembly.See Smithv.Gore ,728 X  S.W.2d738,746(Tenn.1987).   ` Therightofagrandparenttocompelvisitationwithhisorhergrandchildrenispurelystatutory;nosuchrightexistedatcommonlaw.@  %  8      ׀Therefore,intheabsenceofastatute  whoselanguageencompassesthefactsofthiscase,Grandmothercannotpursueherpetition.   ` Sincewehavedeterminedthatthestatutedoesnotapplytothefactualscenariointhiscase,wepretermitanydiscussionregardingrwhetherrsifsorunderwhatcircumstancesthestatutoryschemeforgrandparentsvisitationcanbeconstitutionallyapplied.Cf. Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573 4*& (Tenn.1993); Simmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682(Tenn.1995); ,!(  Floydv.McNeely ,C/ANo.02A019408CH00187,1995WL390954 -|#* (Tenn.App.t,tW.S.,filedJuly5,1995);and Ellisonv.Ellison , /H%, C/ANo.02A019803CH00054,1998WL959670(Tenn.App.u,uW.S.,filedNovember4,1998).  4l*2    ` Theappelleesrequestforattorneysfeesfor frivolousappealunderT.C.A.271122isfoundtobewithoutmeritandisherebydenied.Theissueraisedbytheappellantwasfairlydebatable.See Colev.Dych ,535S.W.2d315,323 T (Tenn.1976).   ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallthingsaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmayberequired,consistentwiththisopinion,andforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.   `     h     __________________________   `     h     CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.________________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J.