WPCL  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88 0JX: 0T: 0@:w@6; D3v; 0^; 0h< 0ro< 0|< 0]= 0= 1us>U,> 0d?U,x?U6?B)?DC@ AMF@U*@.@Av~CvgE AO:KK 0DOL D/L BLV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dU!$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMSHAGLERMADISONVILLE KaraCothronBubis InsAmmons D.M.Snyder strightforwardOvertonCatesT.I.M.E.Brimmer KeeKuykendallArnettSteioff2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  ("$    DDӀeӀGGGG'dxd2, 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  QRYZ[\]^ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 djjjj7Border 1ddTkC << G<  9p`(Arial $ F!  #d#`i  mm   YYY FILEDmX August20,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.mAppellateCourtClerk   F!#d#`i  I$i         Aspertinent,T.C.A.362106(a)providesthefollowing:    Ifthedefendantdemandsajurytrialorifdetermineduponthejuvenilejudge'sownmotion,thejuvenilejudgeshalltransferthecasetothecircuitorchancerycourtforajurytrialupontheissueofpaternity.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco TC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . `&hhXd&#hhXd#i  ݛ  7XXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  j u` ќLlnk;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,exrel.@ ) BRADLEYCOUNTYSTEPHANIESCOTT@ ) 03A019512JV00427 @ ) PlaintiffAppellee@ )@ ) @ )  v.@ ) HON.JOHNB.HAGLER,  @ ) JUDGE@ )MARKBROWN@ )   @ )  DefendantAppellant@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDCLIFFORDE.WILSONOFMADISONVILLEFORAPPELLANTCHARLESW.BURSON,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,andJamesH.Tucker,Jr.,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,OFNASHVILLEFORAPPELLEE@ OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  MarkBrownappealsajudgmentoftheCircuitCourtforBradleyCountywhichfoundthathewasthefatherofKaraDanielleStephens,whowasbornonMay4,1977,andattainedher18thbirthdayduringthependencyofthissuit.  Heraisesthefollowingthreeissuesonappeal:        1. WastheLearnedJuvenileJudgecorrectinoverrulingtheRespondent'sMotiontoDismissonthebasisthatthemother,StephanieScott,wasjudiciallyestoppedtoallegethattheRespondentisthefatherofKaraDanielleStephens? 2. WastheJuvenileCourtcorrectingrantingPetitioner'sMotiontorequiretheRespondenttosubmittobloodtestswherethedemandforbloodtestswasnotmadeattheoriginalappearanceasrequiredbyStatuteasitexistedatthetimeofthefilingofthePetitioninAugustof1990? 3. WastheLearnedCircuitJudgecorrectingrantingPetitioner'sMotiontoestablishpaternitywithoutaTrialandbasedsolelyonbloodtestresults,applyingtheStatuteretroactiveanddenyingtheRespondentajurytrialwhichhadbeenproperlydemanded?         Thepertinentfactsnecessaryfordispositionofthisappealwillbelistedchronologically:1. March22,1978,divorcesuitfiledbyStephanieStephensagainstDennisStephensintheChanceryCourtforPolkCounty,allegingtwochildren,oneofwhichwasKarenStephens,ninemonthsofage,hadbeenborntothemarriage.2. August26,1978,finaldecreegrantingdivorceandcustodyoftheparties'childrentoMrs.Stephens,andordering$40perweekbepaidbyMr.Stephensaschildsupport.3. August22,1986,jointpetitionbyMr.andMrs.StephensseekingtohavetheCourtdeclarethatMr.StephenswasnotthenaturalfatherofKara.4. August30,1986,instrumentstyled"AgreedAmendedOrder,"findingthatKara"isnotthenaturalchildofDennisStephens"andrelievinghimofanyobligationtosupporther.5. August27,1990,petitionbyStateofTennesseeonRelationofMs.ScottagainstMarkBrown,seekinganorderofpaternity,supportforKaraandreimbursementtotheStatefor$582.66,theamountofAidforFamilieswithDependentChildrenpaymentsreceivedbyMs.Scott,formerlyStephens.6. September28,1990,motiontodismissbyMr.BrownonthegroundsofjudicialestoppelbyreasonofMs.Scott'sallegationinthedivorceproceedings.7. October5,1990,State'sresponsetomotiontodismissandmotionforpaternitybloodtests.8. October19,1990,orderappointingguardianadlitemforKara.9. December19,1990,petitionofguardianadlitemwhich"adoptsbyreferenceinitsentiretythePetitionforPaternity...filedbytheStateofTennessee,exrel.StephanieScottagainstMarkBrown."10. April3,1992,motiononbehalfoftheStateandtheguardianadlitemforapaternitybloodtest.11. April9,1992,Mr.Brown'sresponsetomotionforbloodtests.12. Filedatenotshown,petitionofguardianadlitemintheChanceryCourtaskingtheCourttoratifyandconfirmitsorderofAugust30,1986,declaringthatMr.StephensisnotKara'sfather.13. June13,1992,orderratifyingandconfirmingpreviousorderofAugust30,1986.14. February17,1993,orderoverrulingmotiontodismissandgrantingmotionsseekingabloodtest.15. March4,1993,answerofMr.Scottagainadvancingthedefenseofjudicialestoppelanddemandingajury.16. March5,1993,motionbyStatetocompelcompliancewithorderofbloodtest.17. April26,1995,motiontoenteranorderofpaternityagainsttheRespondentpursuanttoT.C.A.24712(b)(2)(B),whichincludedanexhibitshowingtheprobabilityoftheRespondent'spaternitytobe99.99percent.18. June19,1995,Mr.Brown'sresponsetoState'smotionseekingdeclarationofpaternity,contendingthatthecasewasremovedfromtheJuvenileCourtofBradleyCountytotheCircuitCourtbyvirtueofajurydemandpursuanttoT.C.A.362106. o   כ19. August29,1995,orderofJuvenileCourttransferringcasetotheCircuitCourt.20. August29,1995,motioninliminefiledinCircuitCourtbyMr.ScottseekingtoexcludetheresultsofthebloodtestonthegroundthattherequestwastoolateandtoprohibitMs.Scottfromintroducinganypapersasprooftoestablishpaternityonthegroundsofjudicialestoppel.21. August31,1995,State'sresponsetothemotioninlimine.22. October6,1995,orderoftheCircuitCourtdenyingtheRespondent'smotioninlimineandfindingthatjudicialestoppeldoesnot"applyinthiscase,"andgrantingtheState'smotionforsummaryjudgment.TheCourtfurtherfoundwithouttheintroductionofanyproofthatpursuanttoT.C.A.247111,whichhefoundtobeproceduralandapplicabletothedispositionofthiscasethattheRespondentwasthefatherofKara.HethereuponremendedthecasetotheJuvenileCourtforBradleyCountyforfurtherproceedings.  Wenowturntotheissuesonappeal.Thefirst,webelieve,isresolvedbyanunreportedopinionofthisCourt,Kylev.Richardson,filedinKnoxvilleonMay20,1983.Inafactualsituationsimilartothecaseatbar,werejectedthedoctrineofjudicialestoppel,andindoingsostatedthefollowing:        AsheretoforeӀstated,thedefendantreliesonjudicialestoppel.Tennesseehaslongrecognizedthedoctrineofjudicialestoppel.Itissaidthatasamatterofpublicpolicyapartywillnotbepermittedtotakeinconsistentpositionsinlegalproceedings.However,itisalsorecognizedthateachcasemustbedecidedonitson[sic]particularfactsandcircumstances.Thedoctrineisdesignednotsomuchtopreventprejudiceresultingtotheotherpartybuttopreventprejudiceresultingtotheadministrationofjusticeifapartywereallowedtoswearonewayonetimeandadifferentwayanothertime.Cothronv.Scott,60Tenn.App.298,446S.W.2d533(1969);Bubisv.Blackman,58Tenn.App.619,435S.W.2d492(1968);MonroeCountyMotorCo.v.TennesseeOdinsIns.Co.,33Tenn.App.223,231S.W.2d386(1950). Anecessarycomponentofthisruleisthatanythingshortofawillfullyfalsestatementoffact,inthesenseofconsciousanddeliberateperjury,isinsufficienttogiverisetoanestoppelandthatthepartyisentitledtoexplainthatthestatementwasinadvertentorinconsiderateorrepresentsamistakeoflaw.HamiltonNatl.Bankv.Woods,34Tenn.App.360,238S.W.2d109(1951);Stateexrel.Ammonsv.CityofKnoxville,33Tenn.App.622,232S.W.2d564(1950);MonroeCountyMotorCo.v.TennesseeOdinsIns.Co.,supra;D.M.Rose&Co.vSnyder,185Tenn.499,206S.W.2d897(1948).         Mr.BrownattemptstodistinguishKyleonthegroundthatMr.Richardson,whoisallegedtobethefather,accededtothemother'srequestand,assetoutintheopinion,"wenttotheJuvenileClerk'sofficeofMonroeCountyandfiledapetitionforlegitimationofCarrieLeAnnKyle.InthispetitionappellantstatedunderoaththathewasthefatherofCarrieLeAnnKyleandaskedfortheorderoflegitimation.Thereafter,theappellantrefusedtoappearincourt,apparentlyhewasafraidhewasgoingtobeforcedtopaychildsupport."  AlthoughtheforegoingwasmentionedinKyle,giventhefactthatMr.Richardsonrecanted,wedonotbelievethiswasdeterminative,butinsteadtheresolutionofthequestionwasbaseduponthegeneralprinciplesregardingjudicialestoppel.  ResolutionofissuetwoturnsupontheconstructionofT.C.A.247112which,aspertinenttothisissue,providesthefollowing:        247112.TeststodetermineparentageAdmissibilityinevidenceCosts. (a)(1)Inthetrialofanycivilorcriminalproceedinginwhichthequestionofparentagearises,thecourtbeforewhomthemattermaybebrought,uponthemotionofeitherpartyattheinitialappearance,shallorderthatallnecessarypartiessubmittoanytestsandcomparisonswhichhavebeendevelopedandadaptedforpurposesofestablishingordisprovingparentage.Testsfordeterminingpaternitymayincludeanyblood,genetic,orDNAtestutilizedbyanaccreditedlaboratory.Failuretomakeatimelymotionforsubmissiontosuchtestsandcomparisonsshallconstituteawaiverandshallnotbegroundsforacontinuance.Theresultsofsuchtestsandcomparisons,includingthestatisticallikelihoodoftheallegedparent'sparentage,ifavailable,maybeadmittedintoevidenceasprovidedinsubsection(b). (2)Duringanycivilproceedinginwhichthequestionofparentagearises,uponthemotionofeitherpartyoronthecourt'sownmotion,thecourtshall,atsuchtimeasitdeemsequitable,orderallnecessarypartiestosubmittoanytestsandcomparisonswhichhavebeendevelopedandadaptedforpurposesofestablishingordisprovingparentage.Testsfordeterminingpaternitymayincludeanyblood,genetic,orDNAtestutilizedbyanaccreditedlaboratory.Failureofeitherpartytomakeamotionforsubmissiontosuchtestsandcomparisonsshallconstituteawaiverandshallnotbegroundsforacontinuance.Theresultsofsuchtestsandcomparisons,includingthestatisticallikelihoodoftheallegedparent'sparentage,ifavailable,maybeadmittedintoevidenceasprovidedinsubsection(b).         InDavisv.Davis,anunreportedopinionofthisCourt,filedinKnoxvilleonJanuary11,1996,JudgeFranksreviewedcasesaddressingthestatuteandconcludedthattheorderingofabloodtestlaywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt:        Accordingtothestrightforwardlanguageofthefirstprovision,themotherwaivedherrighttothetestsbynotraisingthematterinhercomplaint.Thesecondprovision,however,leavesthejudgewithdiscretion.Nocaseshavereconciledthesetwoprovisions,cf.Steioffv.Steioff,833S.W.2d94(Tenn.App.1992)(rejectingafather'sargumentthathismotionforDNAtestingmettheinitialappearancerequirementwhenitwasmadeatatrialforcontemptwhenhefailedtopaychildsupportthathadbeensetatanearlierdivorceproceeding);Stateexrel.Overtonv.Taylor,786S.W.2d942(Tenn.1990)(demandforpaternitytestingmustbemadeatinitialappearanceofdemandingpartyinjuvenilecourtonlyifissueistriedinjuvenilecourt;ifitistransferredtocircuitcourtfortrial,amotionfortestingattheinitialappearanceinthatforumistimelybecauseitiseffectively"thecourtbeforewhomthemattermaybebrought");Williamsv.Campbell,1995WL429265(Tenn.App.1995)(afather,whodiscoveredtherewasaquestionofpaternityafterthedivorceandtheorderofchildsupport,shouldhavebeengrantedDNAtestswhenheraisedtheissueinitiallyathislaterpaternitysuit). Construingtheseprovisionsinparamateria,weconcludethat(a)(1)requiresthattheJudgeordertestingifoneofthepartiesraisestheissueintheinitialpleading.Iftheissueisraisedlater,(a)(2)grantstheTrialjudgediscretionindecidingwhetherthetestingshouldtakeplace.         WeconcludethatunderthefactsofthepresentcasetheactoftheTrialJudgeingrantingamotiontorequireabloodtestwhichwasfiledsubsequenttoMs.Scott'sinitialappearance,manifeststhefactthattheTrialJudgewasexercisinghisdiscretion,andalsofindthathedidnotabusehisdiscretion.  Insupportofissuenumberthree,Mr.BrownarguesthattheCourtimproperlygaveretrospectiveeffecttoa1994amendmentwhichcontainedtheconclusivepresumptionfeaturefoundinT.C.A.247102(b)(2)(B),whichprovidesthefollowing:        (B) Anindividualisconclusivelypresumedtobethefatherofachildifblood,genetic,orDNAtestsshowthatthestatisticalprobabilityofpaternityisninetynine(99%)orgreater.Arebuttablepresumptionofthepaternityofanindividualisestablishedbyblood,genetic,orDNAtestingshowingastatisticalprobabilityofpaternityofthatindividualatninetyfivepercent(95%)orgreater.         Wefirstnotethatasageneralrulelegislativeenactmentsarepresumedtooperateprospectively.Catesv.T.I.M.E.,DC,Inc.,513S.W.2d508(Tenn.1974).TheRule,however,isqualifiedifthestatuteexpressesacontraryintent,Statev.Brimmer,876S.W.2d75(Tenn.1994),orifitisremedialorproceduralinnature,Keev.ShelterIns.,852S.W.2d226(Tenn.1993),anddoesnotdisturbvestedrightsorcontractualobligations.Kuykendallv.Wheeler,890S.W.2d785(Tenn.1994).  Ourreadingofthestatuteinquestionpersuadesusthatitfallsintheproceduralcategoryinthatitaddressesthepresumptiontoberaisedbyevidenceintroduced.ItcouldhardlybearguedthatMr.ArnetthasavestedrighttoexcludeevidencedisclosedbyDNAtesting.  Inconclusion,weobservethatwearenotcalledupontodeterminetheconstitutionalityofthestatute.Moreover,intheabsenceofproof,wecanonlyspeculatewhetherabrotheroranidenticaltwinbrotherofanallegedfatherwouldhavesimilarDNAreadingswiththeallegedfather,resultingintheanomalousprospectoftwopersonsbeingconclusivelypresumedtobethefatherofonechild.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedtotheCircuitCourtforϜBradleyCountythatitinturnmayberemandedtotheJuvenileCourtforfurthernecessaryproceedingsincidenttothepetition.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Brownandhissurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.