ÿWPC  …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í n­ w@½ ý 0„ 0D‰ Í 0JÍ 0T 0^k 0hÉ 0r1 0|£ 0† 0¥ 1u5U,ª 0dÖ B:U,W D3ƒU6¶B)ì 0@DCU AM˜U*åA®P€þ’~v~vÓŽ AOaư 0Dv D/º Bé˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó÷}± ¡Ó 3|xc«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@ OVPQîRSDTUVeWgXÓ€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¤Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòApparently,€before€final€action€was€taken€on€Mr.€Edmondson's€petition,ÏMr.€Edmondson€and€Ms.€Shell€were€both€satisfied€that€Mr.€Law€was€the€father.€ÏThey€so€stipulated€and€the€parental€rights€of€Mr.€Edmondson€were€terminated.óóÌ vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòInterestingly,€this€case€was€tried€on€June€30,€1994€and€July€1,€1994.€ÏThe€conclusive€presumption€created€by€the€1994€amendment€to€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„112Ïwas€effective€July€1,€1994.óóÌ ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòOur€resolution€of€this€case€in€no€way€is€intended€to€affect€the€rightsÏof€the€child€in€question,€either€on€the€termination€question€or€the€paternityÏissue.€€The€child€is€not€a€party€to€this€action.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ¢XXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€/1.;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌBEVERLY€SUE€SHELL,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àWASHINGTONÏCIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9509„CV„00323Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€RICHARD€JOHNSONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌWILLIAM€A.€LAW,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌR.€WAYNE€œCULBERTSON›,€and€TIMOTHY€R.€œWILKERSON›,€Kingsport,€forÏAppellant.ÌÌÌJOHN€S.€TAYLOR,€Johnson€City,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€is€a€rather€bizarre€case.€€The€plaintiff€brought€thisÏaction€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€the€paternity€of€her€child,ÏAdam€C.€œEdmondson›.€€After€a€jury€trial,€a€jury€verdict€wasÏrendered€finding€the€defendant,€Mr.€Law,€to€be€the€father€of€Adam.€ÏJudgment€was€entered€on€the€jury€verdict€and€this€appeal€resulted.€ÏWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€œÌÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àGenerally€stated€the€following€is€a€recitation€of€the€materi…al€facts€in€this€case.€€Many€details€not€considered€germane€toÏthis€appeal€are€omitted.ÌÌà àThe€parties,€prior€to€the€marriage€of€either,€were€involvedÏin€a€relationship€with€each€other€which€lasted€for€a€short€periodÏof€time.€Subsequently,€the€plaintiff,€Ms.€Shell,€married€Glen€LeeÏEdmondson.€During€her€marriage€to€Edmondson,€Adam€C.€Edmondson,Íthe€subject€of€this€action,€was€born.€Mr.€Edmondson€was€originallyÏa€party€to€this€action,€however,€a€voluntary€non„suit€was€taken€asÏto€him.€The€case€proceeded€as€a€paternity€action€against€theÏdefendant,€William€A.€Law.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€is€a€practicing€attorney.€€After€the€plaintiffÏhad€been€married€to€Mr.€Edmondson€for€a€short€period€of€time,€theÏplaintiff€engaged€Mr.€Law€to€represent€her€in€a€divorce€action.€ÏIn€November€1984,€the€parties€met€on€a€professional€basis€for€theÏpurpose€of€initiating€the€divorce€proceedings.€€After€occasionalÏmeetings€at€the€defendant's€office,€the€parties€on€one€occasionÏwent€to€a€restaurant€for€dinner€and€drinks.€€They€thereafter€wentÏto€Mr.€Law's€house€where€they€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€ac…cording€to€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Shell.€€Mr.€Law€asserts€that€heÏdid€not€have€relations€with€Ms.€Shell€until€after€the€divorce€wasÏgranted.€€He€insists€that€two€or€three€days€after€the€divorce,€sheÏcame€to€his€house€and€the€parties€did€engage€in€sexual€relations.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€it€appears€that€before€learning€that€she€wasÏpregnant,€Ms.€Shell€and€Mr.€Edmondson€were€divorced.€Subsequently,ÍMs.€Shell€discovered€that€she€was€pregnant€and€the€divorce€was€setÏaside.€€The€Edmondsons›€attempted€a€reconciliation€and€resumedÏmarital€relations.€€Ms.€Shell€believed€that€the€pregnancy€was€aÏresult€of€the€marital€relations€since€she€and€Mr.€Law€had€engagedÏin€sexual€intercourse€only€on€one€occasion.€€In€any€event,€thereÏis€evidence€œthat€Ms.›€Shell€had€sexual€relations€with€both€Mr.€LawÏand€Mr.€Edmondson€at€the€time€during€which€conception€would,€inÏthe€due€course€of€nature,€have€taken€place.ÌÌà àThe€œEdmondsons›€were€finally€divorced€in€1989.€€In€her€divorceÏproceeding,€Ms.€Shell€alleged€that€the€child€in€question€was€bornÏof€her€union€with€Mr.€Edmondson.€€Ms.€Shell€was€granted€custody€ofÏthe€child€and€Mr.€Edmondson€was€granted€liberal€visitation€privi…leges.€€Additionally,€he€was€ordered€to€pay€child€support.€€HeÏlater€petitioned€the€court€seeking€an€order€granting€specificÏvisitation€privileges.× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌà àAt€some€time,€Ms.€Shell,€due€to€a€similarity€of€features€andÏother€things€began€to€suspect€that€Mr.€Law€was€the€father€of€theÏchild.€€œMr.›€Law,€Ms.€Shell€and€the€child€œvoluntarily€submitted€toÏblood€tests€to›€determine€parentage.€€Mr.€Edmondson€did€not€partic…ipate€in€the€blood€tests.€€At€the€trial,€testimony€was€admitted€byÏan€expert€witness€who€stated€that€according€to€his€DNA€tests,Ïthere€was€a€œ99.79€percent›€probability€that€Mr.€Law€was€the€father.€ÏThereafter€this€action€was€filed.€€The€issue€of€paternity€wasÏtried€before€a€jury€in€circuit€court.€€The€jury€found€the€defen…dant€to€be€the€father€of€the€child.ÌÌà@ àÔ&  Ôò òISSUESó óÌÌà àThe€defendants€presents€a€multiplicity€of€issues€for€ourÏconsideration€which€are€as€follows:Ô'  ÔÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏby€erroneously€instructing€the€jury€regarding€theÏpresumption€of€legitimacy€and€also€by€establishingÏpaternity€in€Law€despite€the€child€being€the€legit…imate€child€of€Glenn€Lee€Edmondson,€œirrebuttably›Ïpresumed€to€be€so€due€to€his€marriage€to€Shell€andÏcohabitation€with€her€during€the€time€of€concep…tion?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àWhether€there€is€jurisdiction€under€the€paternityÏstatutes€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€bring€anÏaction€to€establish€paternity€of€a€legitimate€childÏin€another€other€than€the€legitimate€father€of€theÏchild?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à3.à àWhether€the€trial€judge€committed€reversible€errorÏby€not€barring€Shell€from€œrelitigating›€the€paterni…ty€of€the€child€which€was€already€established€byÏher€divorce€decree€and€also€from€asserting€certainÏfactual€matters€totally€at€odds€with€those€preƒviously€represented€to€the€court€in€the€divorceÏaction?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à4.à àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏin€allowing€the€introduction€of€proof€of€DNA€eviƒdence€that€did€not€comply€with€the€requirementsÏgoverning€the€introduction€of€DNA€evidence€inÏpaternity€suits?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à5.à àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏby€allowing€DNA€evidence€developed€from€bloodÏsamples€without€a€showing€of€a€proper€chain€ofÏcustody€for€those€blood€samples?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à6.à àWhether,€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€Shell€isÏguilty€of€laches€and€should€have€been€barred€fromÏpursuing€the€question€of€her€child's€paternityÏagainst€Law?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à7.à àWhether€the€legitimate€father€of€the€child€was€anÏindispensable€party€to€this€paternity€suit?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à8.à àWhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€errorÏby€cutting€short€Law's€testimony€pertaining€to€theÏissue€of€laches€at€a€crucial€point€in€the€trial€andÏby€not€reading€to€the€jury€Law's€proposed€juryÏinstruction€on€the€issue€of€laches€at€the€close€ofÏthe€proof?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à9.à àWhether€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€was€inÏerror,€not€supported€by€the€evidence€and€should€beÏreversed€or€remanded€for€new€trial€for€the€reasonÏthat€the€evidence€as€set€forth€in€the€record€is€notÏsufficient€and€does€not€support€the€finding€thatÏLaw€is€the€legal€father€of€the€child?ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÌÌà àOur€review€of€a€judgment€based€upon€a€jury€verdict€is€gov…erned€by€Rule€13(d),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€ÏFindings€of€fact€by€a€jury€in€civil€actions€shall€be€set€asideÏonly€if€there€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€WeÏnote,€however,€that€there€is€a€substantial€body€of€case€law€that,Ïas€a€matter€of€law,€requires€certain€facts€be€establ‚ished€byÏclear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence.€œFor€example›€œthe›€presumptionÏof€legitimacy€may€be€overcome€only€by€œclear,€cogent›€and€convincingÏproof.€€We€will,€therefore,€when€we€reach€œissues€requiring€theÏevidence€to€be€clear,€cogent€and€convincing,€examine€the€record€toÏdetermine€if€there€is›€sufficient€œproof€to›€constitute€clear,€cogentÏand€convincing€evidence€to€support€the€findings€of€the€jury.ÌÌà@ àò òDISCUSSION€OF€THE€ISSUESó óÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€court€erredÏin€its€instructions€to€the€jury€regarding€the€presumption€ofÏœlegitimacy.€›€He€argues€that€the€presumption€is€irrebuttable€due€toÏthe€marriage€and€cohabitation€of€Ms.€Shell€and€Mr.€EdmondsonÏduring€the€time€of€conception.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà àThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€the€law€presumes€that€the€man€plaintiff€wasÏÔ'  Ômarried€to€at€the€time€of€the€birth€of€the€child€is€theÏfather€of€the€child.€€So€this€presumption€of€the€law€isÏthat€Mr.€Edmondson,€the€man€that€the€plaintiff€wasÏmarried€to€at€the€time€of€this€child€we€have€been€talk…ing€about,€is€the€father€of€the€child.€€And€a€presump…tion€means€a€fact€or€group€of€facts€assumed€to€be€trueÏin€law.€€Now€this€legal€presumption€that€we're€dealingÏwith€may€be€overcome€by€clear,€cogent€and€convincingÏevidence€that€one€other€than€the€man€plaintiff€wasÏmarried€to€at€the€time€of€the€child's€birth€is€theÏchild's€father.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€court€further€defined€"clear,€cogent€and€convincing"Ïevidence€and€placed€the€burden€of€proof€upon€the€plaintiff.€€WeÏfind€no€error€in€the€way€and€manner€in€which€the€court€instructedÍthe€jury€on€this€issue.€€We€acknowledge€that€at€common€law€and€inÏthe€earlier€stages€of€the€development€of€the€common€law€in€thisÏjurisdiction,€the€presumption€that€a€child€born€during€marriageÏwas€legitimate€was€for€all€practical€purposes€conclusive.€€IndeedÏit€has€been€said€that€"[œt]his›€presumption€obtained€as€to€a€childÏborn€in€marriage,€no€matter€how€soon€after€the€marriage€a€birthÏfollowed;€that€is€to€say,€the€child€was€presumed€to€be€legitimate,Ïunless€it€was€shown€that€the€husband€was€impotent€or€beyond€theÏfour€seas€during€the€period€when€the€child€must€in€the€course€ofÏnature€have€been€œbegotten."€›€òòJackson€et€al.€v.€œThornton›€et€alóó.,Ï133€Tenn.€36,€179€S.W.€œ384;›€€òòCunningham€v.€Goldenóó,€652€S.W.2d€œ910›Ïœ(Tenn.›€App.€1983).ÌÌà àThe€presumption€of€legitimacy€has€been€somewhat€eroded,Ïhowever,€and€the€"beyond€the€four€seas"€has€been€replaced€with€theÏsimple€"non„access"€concept.€€The€failure€to€demonstrate€non„access,€however,€does€not€render€the€issue€of€paternity€irrebutta…ble€as€the€appellant€insists.€€Non„access€is€simply€a€matter€ofÏevidence€to€be€considered€along€with€all€other€evidence€in€theÏcase€relating€to€paternity.ÌÌà àAdvances€in€the€medical€sciences€have€now€made€the€issue€ofÏtrue€parentage€extremely€important.€€Further,€advances€in€theÏscientific€world€œhave›€provided€evidence€from€which€parentage€canÏbe€established€with€much€more€certainty€than€at€the€time€of€theÏœcreation€and€the€application€of›€the€common€law€œpresumptions.›ÌÌà àDuring€times€material€to€the€issues€under€consideration€hereÏT.C.A.€ðð€œ24„7„112€provided›€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò ò24„7„112.€Tests€to€determine€parentage€„€Admissi…bility€in€evidence€„€Costs.ó ó€(a)€(1)€€In€the€trial€ofÏany€civil€or€criminal€proceeding€in€which€the€questionÏof€parentage€arises,€the€court€before€whom€the€matterÏmay€be€brought,€upon€the€motion€of€either€party€at€theÏinitial€appearance,€shall€order€that€all€necessaryÏparties€submit€to€any€tests€and€comparisons€which€haveÏbeen€developed€and€adapted€for€purposes€of€establishingÏor€disproving€parentage.€Tests€for€determining€paternityÏmay€include€any€blood,€genetic,€or€DNA€test€utilized€byÏan€accredited€laboratory.€Failure€to€make€a€timelyÏmotion€for€submission€to€such€tests€and€comparisonsÏshall€constitute€a€waiver€and€shall€not€be€grounds€for€aÏcontinuance.€The€results€of€such€tests€and€comparisons,Ïincluding€the€statistical€likelihood€of€the€allegedÏparent's€parentage,€if€available,€may€be€admitted€intoÏevidence€as€provided€in€subsection€(b).Ì€Ìà8 àà à(2)€During€any€civil€proceeding€in€which€the€ques…tion€of€parentage€arises,€upon€the€motion€of€eitherÍparty€or€on€the€court's€own€motion,€the€court€shall,€atÏsuch€time€as€it€deems€equitable,€order€all€necessaryÏparties€to€submit€to€any€tests€and€comparisons€whichÏhave€been€developed€and€adapted€for€purposes€of€estab…lishing€or€disproving€parentage.€Tests€for€determiningÏpaternity€may€include€any€blood,€genetic,€or€DNA€testÏutilized€by€an€accredited€laboratory.€Failure€of€eitherÏparty€to€make€a€motion€for€submission€to€such€tests€andÏcomparisons€shall€constitute€a€waiver€and€shall€not€beÏgrounds€for€a€continuance.€€The€results€of€such€testsÏand€comparisons,€including€the€statistical€likelihood€ofÏthe€alleged€parent's€parentage,€if€available,€may€beÏadmitted€into€evidence€as€provided€in€subsection€(b).€ÌÌà8 àà à(b)à àUpon€receiving€the€results€of€the€tests€andÏcomparisons€conducted€pursuant€to€subsection€(a),€theÏcourt€shall€proceed€as€follows:€ÌÌà8 àà à(1)à àIf€the€results€of€the€tests€and€comparisonsÏexclude€the€defendant€as€the€father€of€the€child,€thisÏevidence€shall€be€conclusive€evidence€of€non„paternityÏand€the€court€shall€dismiss€the€proceeding.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)à àIf€the€tests€and€comparisons€do€not€excludeÏthe€defendant€as€the€father€of€the€child,€the€court€uponÏmotion€for€the€introduction€of€the€results€of€such€testsÏand€comparisons€by€either€party,€shall€determine€whetherÏsuch€results€may€be€admitted€into€evidence.€€In€makingÏsuch€a€determination,€the€court€shall€consider€theÏprobative€value€of€such€tests€and€comparisons€and€theÏresults€thereof€and€whether€or€not€they€have€been€prop…erly€authenticated.€€If€the€court€determines€that€theÏtests€and€comparisons€should€be€admitted€into€evidence,Ïsuch€evidence€shall€be€considered€by€the€trier€of€factÏalong€with€all€other€evidence€of€the€defendant's€pater…nity.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€above€section€of€the€code€was€amended€effective€July€1,Ïœ1994,›€to€provide€a€conclusive€presumption€of€paternity€if€blood,Ïgenetic,€or€DNA€testing€shows€that€the€statistical€probability€ofÏpaternity€œis€99›€œpercent›€or€greater.€€A€rebuttable€presumption€ofÏpaternity€was€created€where€the€statistical€probability€was€œ95Ïpercent›€or€greater.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€It€is€interesting€to€note€that€œneither›€theÏoriginal€statute€nor€the€statute€as€amended€œcontains€a€requirementÏwherein›€œclear,€cogent›€and€convincing€evidence€of€non„access€isÏrequired.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€relies€on€the€case€of€òòœTindle›€v.€Gayóó,€891€S.W.2dÏ617€(Tenn.€App.€1994)€as€authority€that€the€presumption€of€legiti…macy€of€a€child€born€during€marriage€is€conclusive€where€the€proofÏis€clear€and€convincing€that€the€mother€and€her€husband€continuedÏto€have€sexual€relations€during€the€œperiod€in€which€the€child›€mustÏhave€been€conceived.€€The€appellant€misapprehends€the€holding€inÏòòœTindle›óó.€€The€language€relied€upon€by€the€appellant€is€simply€aÏrecitation€of€an€issue€presented€to€the€court€by€the€appellant€inÍòòœTindle›óó€and€is€in€no€way€sustained€in€the€judgment€of€the€court.€ÏOn€the€contrary,€the€court€acknowledged€the€presumption€of€legiti…macy€but€found€that€œthe›€defendant€and€not€the€plaintiff's€husbandÏwas€the€child's€father.€€In€so€doing,€the€court€determined€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€wife€that€she€was€having€sexual€relationsÏœonly›€with€the€œdefendant€on€the€date€of€conception€(limited€to€oneÏdate),›€coupled€with€the€genetic€testing€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏrebut€the€presumption€of€legitimacy.ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€it€is€no€longer€necessary€toÏestablish€non„access€by€clear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence€toÏsuccessfully€pursue€a€paternity€action€against€a€third€party€to€aÏmarriage.€€Insofar€as€this€issue,€standing€alone,€is€concerned,Ïthe€jury€was€properly€instructed,€accredited€the€evidence€tendingÏto€show€œpaternity,›€and€found€the€defendant€to€be€the€father€of€theÏchild€in€question.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.€€ÌÌà àAppellant's€next€issue€challenges€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏcourts€to€entertain€an€action€to€establish€paternity€of€a€legiti…mate€child€in€œone€other›€than€the€legitimate€father€of€the€child.€ÍIn€òòBass€v.€Normanóó,€an€unreported€opinion€of€this€œcourt,€opinionÏfiled€December€29,›€1989,€the€court€citing€€òòœFrazier›€v.€œMcFerren›óó,€55ÏTenn.€App.€431,€402€S.W.2d€467€(1964)€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThere€is€an€apparent€inconsistency€between€[ððððÏ36„2„101€and€36„2„106].€Section€[ðð€36„2„101]€defines€aÏchild€contemplated€by€the€statute€as€being€born€out€ofÏwedlock.€However,€Section€[ðð€36„2„106]€expressly€pro…vides€that€both€the€mother€and€her€husband€may€testifyÏas€to€nonaccess€of€the€husband.€This€indicates€clearlyÏthat€the€Legislature€intended€to€provide€for€the€supportÏof€all€children€proven€to€be€illegitimate€both€thoseÏborn€out€of€wedlock€and€those€born€to€a€mother€who€wasÏmarried€but€whose€husband€was€proven€not€to€be€theÏfather€of€the€child€in€question.€ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòœFrazier›óó,€a€paternity€action€was€successfully€prosecuted€byÏthe€mother€against€the€child's€father,€even€though€the€mother€wasÏmarried€to€another€at€the€time€of€the€child's€birth.€€"òòœFrazier›óóÏholds€that,€under€the€statutes€considered,€a€proven€father€owes€aÏduty€of€support€to€his€child€regardless€of€whether€he€was€marriedÏto€the€mother€or€whether€the€mother€was€married€to€another€man€atÏthe€time€of€birth.€Because€of€the€peculiar€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ððÏ36„2„106,€the€court€concluded€that€the€Legislature€intended€thatÏillegitimate€children,€even€those€legally€presumed€to€be€legiti…mate,€but€actually€shown€not€to€be€the€children€of€the€husband,Ïwere€owed€a€duty€of€support€by€the€biological€father.€The€purposeÏof€the€paternity€statute€is€to€require€a€biological€father€toÏsupport€his€child."€€òòBassóó,€supra.€€Under€the€authority€of€òòBassóó€andÏT.C.A.€ðð€36„2„106€coupled€with€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€24„7„112,Ïwe€believe€that€all€common€law€presumptions€relating€to€paternityÏand€legitimacy€are€rebuttable€and€the€public€policy€has€now€beenÏestablished€by€the€General€Assembly€that€true€parentage€is€the€endÏthat€should€œbe›€pursued€by€the€courts€in€paternity€actions.€€TheÏcourts€in€this€jurisdiction€obviously€possess€jurisdiction€to€tryÏthese€types€of€cases.€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€third€issue€challenges€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtÏin€allowing€the€plaintiff€to€œrelitigate›€paternity€of€the€childÏsince€the€child€was€impliedly,€at€least,€found€to€be€the€legiti…mate€child€of€the€husband€in€the€divorce€action€between€Shell€andÏEdmondson.€€To€sustain€this€issue,€the€appellant€relies€upon€theÏœdoctrines›€of€òòres€judicataóó€and€estoppel.ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€òòWhite€v.€Whiteóó,€876€S.W.2d€837Ï(Tenn.€1994),€is€controlling.€€As€to€òòres€judicataóó,€in€òòWhiteóó€it€isÏsaid:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àIn€order€to€be€successful,€a€party€asserting€a€òòresÏjudicataóó€defense€must€demonstrate:€€(1)€that€the€underlyƒing€judgment€was€rendered€by€a€court€of€competent€juris…diction;€(2)€òòthat€the€same€parties€were€involved€in€bothÏsuitsóó;€(3)€that€the€same€cause€of€action€was€involved€inÏboth€suits;€and€(4)€that€the€underlying€judgment€was€onÏthe€merits.ÓÓ€€(Emphasis€added).Ìà8 à€Ìà àAs€to€the€theory€of€òòres€judicataóó,€clearly€the€requirementÏnecessary€to€bring€the€doctrine€into€play€are€not€established.€ÏSimply€œstated,€the›€òòres€judicataóó€œdefense€is›€defeated€in€this€actionÏbecause€the€parties€are€not€the€same.ÌÌà àThe€question€regarding€estoppel€requires€a€more€carefulÏexamination.€€The€doctrine€of€judicial€estoppel€is€generallyÏstated€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€doctrine€of€judicial€estoppel€provides€a€liti…gant€who€has€deliberately€taken€a€position€in€one€judi…cial€proceeding€will€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,€be€allowedÏto€advantage€his€or€herself€by€taking€an€inconsistentÏposition€in€another€suit.€òòIn€œMelton›€v.€Andersonóó,€32ÍTenn.€App.€335,€222€S.W.2d€666€(œTenn.€App.€›1948)€thisÏcourt€said,€at€669:Ì€Ìà8 àà0 àà àA€general€statement€of€the€doctrine€of€judi…cial€estoppel€is€that€where€one€states€on€oath€inÏformer€litigation,€either€in€a€pleading€or€in€aÏdeposition€or€on€oral€testimony,€a€given€fact€asÏtrue,€he€will€not€be€permitted€to€deny€that€fact€inÏsubsequent€litigation,€although€the€parties€may€notÏÔ&  Ôbe€the€same.€(Citations€omitted.)ÌÌòòœExtine›€v.€œTRW›€œKoyo›€Steering€Systems€Coóó,€Unpublished€opinion€Tenn.ÏApp.€1994.ÌÔ'  ÔÌÓÓÌà àIn€òòœCarvell›€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Su…preme€Court€in€discussing€judicial€estoppel€noted€that€the€policyÏundergirding€judicial€estoppel€is€to€prevent€a€party€from€gainingÏan€unfair€advantage€by€taking€inconsistent€positions€on€the€sameÏissue€in€different€lawsuits.€€We€believe€that€the€reasoning€statedÏin€òòœCarvell›óó,€i.e.,€where€an€attempt€to€gain€unfair€advantage€isÏabsent,€judicial€estoppel€does€not€apply,€is€applicable€to€theÏfacts€of€this€case.€€At€the€time€of€the€divorce€hearing,€theÏparties€were€unaware€of€the€true€facts€relating€to€paternity€ofÏthe€child€in€that€DNA€tests€had€not,€at€that€time€been€performed.€ÏIt€therefore€follows€that€there€was€and€is€no€attempt€to€takeÏunfair€advantage€by€taking€inconsistent€positions,€but€to€theÍcontrary,€disallowing€the€application€of€judicial€estoppel€recti…fies€an€unfair€result€created€by€the€prior€litigation.€€We€findÏthe€doctrine€of€estoppel€to€be€inapplicable€under€the€circumstanc…es€of€this€case.ÌÌà àAppellant's€next€two€issues€charge€the€trial€court€with€errorÏin€allowing€evidence€of€DNA€testing.€€The€chief€complaint€is€thatÏthe€expert€witness€failed€to€establish€a€proper€chain€of€custodyÏof€the€blood€samples€tested.€€The€appellant€further€complains€thatÏthe€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„112€were€not€met€in€that€theÏprocurement€of€the€evidence€was€not€œjudicially›€supervised.ÌÌà àWe€will€first€look€to€the€chain€of€evidence€question.€€InÏòòRitter€v.€Stateóó,€462€S.W.2d€247€œ(Tenn.€Ct.›€œCrim›.€App.€œ1970),›€weÏfind€the€following€discussion:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€chain€of€evidence€method€of€identification€is€aÏwidely€recognized€concept€in€both€civil€and€criminalÏlaw.€In€most€cases€it€is€not€possible€to€establish€theÏidentity€of€an€exhibit€in€question€by€a€single€witness.ÏSeveral€persons€have€usually€handled€the€specimen€beforeÏits€analysis.€See€Annotation:€21€œA.L.R.2d›€1216;€29ÏœAm.Jur›.2d€Evidence€Sec.€830;€32€C.J.S.€Evidence€ðð€588(2).Ì€Ìà8 àà àBlood€specimens€such€as€this€should€be€handled€withÏthe€greatest€of€care€and€all€persons€who€handle€theÏspecimen€should€be€ready€to€identify€it€and€testify€toÏits€custody€and€unchanged€condition.€òòPeople€v.ÏœSansalone›óó,€208€Misc.€491,€146€œN.Y.S.2d›€359€(1955).ÌÌà8 àà àWhether€the€requisite€chain€of€possession€has€beenÏsufficiently€established€to€justify€admission€of€theÏœexhibit,›€is€a€matter€committed€to€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€judge€and€his€determination€will€not€be€overturnedÏin€the€absence€of€a€clearly€mistaken€exercise€thereof.ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€99€œN.J.Super›.€22,€238€A.2d€482€(1968).Ì€Ìà8 àà àòòIn€Patterson€v.€Stateóó,€224€Ga.€197,€160€œS.E.2d›€815Ï(1968),€a€medical€technologist€took€a€blood€specimen€andÏplaced€the€sample€in€four€tubes,€personally€labeled€themÏand€put€them€in€a€refrigerator€in€the€laboratory,€Fri…day,€June€9,€1967.€The€following€Monday,€June€12,€1967,Ïthe€chief€technologist€ran€a€test.€From€Friday€untilÏMonday,€approximately€eight€persons€employed€in€theÏlaboratory€had€access€to€the€refrigerator.€The€courtÏsaid:Ì€Ìà8 àà0 à"The€evidence€shows€that€the€blood€sample€wasÏhandled€in€the€normal€course€of€testing€and€thereÏis€nothing€in€the€record€that€creates€a€suspicionÏthat€the€blood€tested€was€other€than€that€takenÏfrom€the€defendant.€The€identity€of€such€bloodÏsamples€need€not€be€proved€beyond€all€possibilityÏof€doubt€or€that€all€possibility€of€tampering€withÏthem€be€excluded.€The€circumstances€need€onlyÏestablish€reasonable€assurance€of€the€identity€ofÏthe€sample."ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€believe€the€evidence€relating€to€blood€testing€in€thisÏcase€is€analogous€to€the€facts€as€stated€in€the€above€case.€€Here,Íthe€blood€was€drawn€by€a€phlebotomist€and€not€by€the€witnessÏtestifying.€€The€witness,€Dr.€Hubbard,€testified€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àDo€your€records€reflect€the€dates€upon€which€thoseÏtests€(DNA)€were€conducted,€and€in€whose€presenceÏthey€may€have€been€conducted,€and€under€what€typesÏof€conditions€and€policy?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àWhich€would€you€like€for€me€to€answer€first?€€I€canÏexplain€to€you€the€normal€operating€procedure.€€TheÏblood€is€drawn€in€the€hospital€laboratory,€not€byÏme,€œit's›€drawn€by€a€phlebotomist,€who€are€peopleÏwho€are€specifically€trained€to€draw€blood.€€AfterÏthe€blood€is€drawn,€there€are€various€documentsÏthat€have€to€be€signed€to€maintain€chain€of€posses…sion€of€the€blood.€€An€authorization€to€do€theÏtesting€is€given€by€individuals€involved€in€theÏcase.€€Their€phlebotomy€or€the€blood€being€drawn€isÏwitnessed,€and€the€witnesses€sign€as€to€who€theyÏare.€€Individuals€participating€in€the€case€areÏphotographed,€identified€using€a€picture€ID€usual…ly,€or€mutual€identification.€€They€areÏfingerprinted€and€they€are€photographed.€€Once€theÏblood€is€drawn,€the€participants,€if€they€are€able,Ïinitial€the€blood€tubes,€if€they€are€able.€€I€meanÏif€it's€a€minor,€then€one€of€the€guardians€initialÏthe€blood€tubes.€€Then€they€are€sealed€in€a€sampleÏð"ð€in€a€tamper€evident€sample€package,€it's€notÏtamper€proof.€€And€once€the€blood€samples€areÏsealed€in€that€tamper€evident€bag,€along€with€theÏdoc‚umentation,€then€participants€in€the€test€ini…tial€the€seal,€and€then€they€are€taken€to€my€labo…ratory,€and€then€I,€or€one€of€my€technologists,Ïopens€the€bag€and€the€tests€will€proceed€fromÏthere.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThere€is€further€evidence€that€the€Dr.€Hubbard€personally€didÏthe€testing€on€the€blood€samples€in€question.€€Dr.€Hubbard€alsoÏproduced€the€record€containing€the€documentation€testified€toÏabove.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€cast€suspicion€on€theÏauthenticity€of€the€samples.€€In€keeping€with€òòRitter€v.€Stateóó,Ïsupra,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€failure€to€have€the€phlebot…omist€available€to€testify€did€not€render€the€evidence€incompe…tent.€€Rather,€the€circumstances€under€which€the€samples€wereÏtaken€and€the€tests€conducted,€are€matters€affecting€the€credibil…ity€of€the€evidence€rather€than€the€admissibility.€€Credibility€ofÏevidence€is€within€the€jury's€province.ÌÌà àœAs€to›€the€œcontention›€œthat›€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„112€were€not€met,€we€find€no€error€on€the€part€of€the€trial€œjudgeÏin€admitting€the€evidence.›€€The€parties€voluntarily€submitted€toÏthe€blood€testing€without€judicial€intervention€and€will€not€nowÏbe€œheard›€to€complain€as€to€the€lack€of€judicial€supervision.€€WeÏhold€that€by€voluntarily€undergoing€the€blood€tests€the€partiesÏwaived€the€formal€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€24„7„112.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€merit€in€these€issues.ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€relates€to€the€doctrine€of€laches.€€Laches€isÏestablished€when€there€has€been€"neglect€or€omission€to€assert€aÏright€which,€taken€in€conjunction€with€a€lapse€of€time,€causesÏprejudice€to€the€adverse€party."€òòFirst€American€Bank€of€NashvilleÏv.€Woodsóó,€734€S.W.2d€622€(Tenn.€œApp.€1987),›€perm.€œapp›.€denied,Ï(1987).€Courts€are€reluctant€to€apply€the€defense€of€laches€and€inÏa€case€where€delay€in€filing€suit€can€reasonably€be€explained€orÏjustified,€the€defense€will€not€be€applied.€òòFreeman€v.€MartinÏœRobowash›óó,€Inc.,€61€Tenn.€App.€677,€457€S.W.2d€606€(Tenn.€App.Ïœ1970).›€€The€record€does€not€establish€any€prejudice€by€the€timingÏof€this€action.€€Hence,€we€find€the€doctrine€of€laches€to€beÏinapplicable.ÌÌà àThe€next€assertion€which€the€appellant€insists€requiresÏreversal€of€the€trial€court's€judgment€is€that€the€"legitimateÏfather€of€the€child€was€an€indispensable€party€to€œthis€paternity›Ïœsuit."›€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€At€the€time€of€this€trial,€theÍparental€rights€of€the€husband€had€been€œterminated.›× ƒ4 ××  ×€€He€had€noÏother€œnor›€further€interest€in€the€outcome€of€this€case.€ÌÌà àUnder€Rule€19.01,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€aÏperson€must€be€made€a€party€if€in€his€absence€complete€reliefÏcannot€be€accorded€among€those€already€parties€or€an€interestÏrelating€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€action€is€asserted€and€he€isÏso€situated€that€the€disposition€of€the€action€in€his€absence€mayÏ(œi›)€as€a€practical€matter€impair€or€impede€his€ability€to€protectÏthat€interest€or€(ii)€leave€any€of€the€persons€already€partiesÏsubject€to€a€substantial€risk€of€incurring€double,€multiple€orÏotherwise€inconsistent€obligations€by€reasons€of€his€claimedÏinterest.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€above€requirements€forÏan€indispensable€party€have€not€been€demonstrated.€€We€find€noÏmerit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€attacks€the€court's€action€in€restrictingÏtestimony€regarding€laches€and€in€the€court's€instructions€to€theÍjury€relating€to€laches.€€Laches€is€a€purely€equitable€doctrineÏand€is€for€the€court€to€determine€rather€than€the€jury.€€"...Ïcases€of€such€complicated€and€intricate€nature€involving€mixedÏquestions€of€law€and€fact€not€suitable€for€solution€by€a€jury€suchÏas€laches€or€estoppel"€are€not€jury€questions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏHartleyóó,€790€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€issue€of€laches€was€submitted€to€the€jury.€ÏThe€jury€obviously€rejected€the€defense€of€laches€and€the€trialÏjudge€in€weighing€the€evidence€on€motion€for€new€trial€obviouslyÏagreed€that€the€doctrine€of€laches€did€not€apply.€€Hence,€anyÏerror€in€submitting€laches€to€the€jury€was€harmless.ÌÌà àAppellant's€last€issue€relates€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€Our€review€of€the€record€reflects€that€there€is€ampleÏevidence€to€establish€clearly,€cogently€and€convincingly€that€theÏdefendant€is€the€biological€father€of€the€child€in€question.€€WeÏfind€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€if€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌœÇÑ  ÑÑ7€ë$XXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌBEVERLY€SUE€SHELL,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àWASHINGTON€CIRCUITÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9509„CV„00323Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€RICHARD€JOHNSONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌWILLIAM€A.€LAW,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌ€Ìà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Washington€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€coun…sel.€€Upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinionÏthat€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€if€affirmed€in€all€respects.€ÏCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ›