WPC. T jq3;p}hpTchگ}],XAnV!BSxx0dyIhX+8a BAj2_f}/c;GKpS-XC;著^,l:jʽ)f6И%q9A>в }P.tEvH;'T+@ex ֤)[; &On _l%  #X[XXX ##LXX[h#X[XL_Tenn._ԀR.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and f Remanded  V   #LX[b#X[X.LDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.Highers,J.andHolly 6 K.Lillard,J.,joined. & JosephY._Longmire_,Jr.,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JamesR.Green.  GaryM.Williams,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JenniferLeighJohnson. !  =  OPINION #LXX[l #X[XL v#" #LXX[ #  X[XLX XXX[  ThisisthesecondactionthatGreenhasfiledseekingtoestablishhisparentageoftheminor V% $ child,_A.G.J._ԀInhisfirstpetition,filedinApril1997,GreenallegedthatheandJohnsonhadasexual B&!% relationshipinOctober1990,thatJohnsonbecamepregnantasaresultofthissexualrelationship, .'~"& andthatJohnsongavebirthto_A.G.J._ԀinJune1991.Greenrequestedthatbloodtestsbeadministered (j#' todeterminehisparentageof_A.G.J._,andheaskedthetrialcourttoestablishavisitationschedule )V$( andtodeterminehissupportobligations. )B%)   WithinthirtydaysofthefilingofGreenspetition,Johnsonfiledananswerinwhichshe +'+ indicatedthatshedidnotknowifGreenwasthefatherof_A.G.J._ԀInordertodeterminetheissueof ,(, parentage,Johnsonagreedtosubmittotherequestedbloodtests. -(-' Ї  TherecordonappealreflectsnofurthereffortsbyGreentoprosecutehisfirstpetition.In  February1998,JohnsonfiledamotiontodismissbaseduponGreensfailuretoprosecutetheaction.   See Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(1).Inhermotion,Johnsonallegedthatarrangementsweremadeforthe  partiestosubmittobloodtestsatGeneProofTechnologiesonJune12,1997,butthatGreenfailed t tokeeptheappointment.JohnsonsmotionfurtherallegedthatGreenhadfailedtoreschedulethe ` bloodtests,despitecommunicationstohiscounseloftheneedtodoso. L    InMarch1998,thetrialcourtgrantedJohnsonsmotionanddismissedGreenspetitionwith $ t prejudice.Withindaysofentryofthisorder,Greenfiledamotiontosetasidetheorderofdismissal.  ` Asgroundsforhismotion,Greenallegedthathis counselinadvertentlyfailedtolistthedateofthe  L  motiontodismissonhistrialcalendarand,therefore,wasnotinCourtonthedateofmotion.  8    AttheApril6,1998,hearingonGreensmotiontosetaside,Greenscounseladvisedthe   trialcourtthatGreendesiredtostrikehismotiontosetasidethecourtsorderofdismissal.Based   uponthisadvice,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingGreensmotiontostrike,thusleavingintact   thecourtsorderofdismissal.Greendidnotappealthetrialcourtsorders.     OnJune29,1999,Greeninitiatedthepresentproceedingswhenhefiledasecondpetition \ seekingtoestablishtheparentageof_A.G.J._ԀGreenssecondpetitioncontainedthesameallegations H andrequestedthesamereliefashisfirstpetition.Johnsonrespondedtothepetitionbyfilinga 4 motiontodismiss.Citingtheprovisionsofrule41.02(3)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,  p JohnsoncontendedthattheMarch1998dismissalwithprejudiceconstitutedanadjudicationofthe  \ meritsofGreensfirstpetitionand,thus,Greenssecondpetitionwasbarredbyprinciplesof res H judicata . 4   ThetrialcourtagreedwithJohnsonscontentionand,inSeptember1999,enteredanorder   dismissingGreenssecondpetition.Onappealfromthisorder,Greencontendsthatthetrialcourt  erredindismissinghissecondpetitionbecauserule41.02(3)shouldnotapplytopetitionsto  establishparentage.Insupportofthiscontention,Greenarguesthatrule41.02(3)conflictswiththe  provisionsofthisstatesparentagestatutesandviolatesthestatespublicpolicyregardingactions l toestablishparentage. X    Rule41.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureauthorizesthetrialcourttodismiss 0"  aplaintiffsactioniftheplaintifffailstoprosecutetheactionortocomplywiththerulesoranycourt #l! order. See Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(1).Rule41.02alsoaddressestheeffectofsuchadismissal: $X" 8   ` Unlessthecourtinitsorderfordismissalotherwisespecifies,adismissal %0!$ underthissubdivisionandanydismissalnotprovidedforinthisRule41,otherthan &"% adismissalforlackofjurisdictionorforimpropervenueorforlackofan '#& &  indispensableparty,operatesasanadjudicationuponthemerits.(#'   Tenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(3).'(  |*%)  h+&*   Onappeal,Greenconcedesthat,asageneralrule,adismissalforfailuretoprosecute  pursuanttorule41.02operatesasanadjudicationonthemeritsandbarsasubsequentsuitonthe  sameaction. See,e.g. , _Madyun_ԁv._Ballard_ ,783S.W.2d946,948(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Green  contends,however,thatthisruleshouldnotbeappliedinthepresentcasetobarhissecondpetition t toestablishparentage. `   Insupportofthiscontention,GreencitesthefollowingprovisionofTennesseesparentage 8  statutes: $ t 8   ` Apetitiontoestablishparentagemaybebroughtunderthispartifadismissal  L  ofapetitionunderthepriorlegitimizationstatuteswasbaseduponthemothers  8  marriagetoanothermanatthetimeofconceptionoruponthepetitionerslackof $  standing.Insuchcases,therequirementsofsubdivision(b)(2)(A)requiringa   petitiontobefiledwithintwelve(12)monthsofthebirthofthechildshallnotapply.   Itistheintentofthegeneralassemblythatputativefatherswhofiledacauseof   actionunderthischapterpriortotheJuly1,1997,effectivedateofActs1997,ch.   477,andwhoseactionwassodismissed,shallhaveanopportunitytoprosecutea p singlecauseofactionunderthispart.Thus,thedoctrinesof resjudicata and \ collateralestoppelshallnotbarsuchneworpendingaction,norshallanystatuteof H limitationwhichmayhaverunbarsuchneworpendingaction.Itistheclearand 4 unequivocalintentofthegeneralassemblythatthisprovisionshallbeapplied  p retroactivelytosuchpetitionstoestablishparentage.Nosuchretroactiveapplication  \ shall,however,abrogatethe&  provisionsof36-1-122.   #  1      H   Tenn.CodeAnn.36-2-304(b)(2)(B)(Supp.1999)(footnoteadded).'f)     ThisprovisionwentintoeffectJune14,1999,fifteendaysbeforeGreenfiledhissecond  petitiontoestablishparentage. See 1999Tenn.Pub.Acts.339.Itamendedtheparentagestatutes  thatthelegislatureenactedinJuly1997,whileGreensfirstpetitionwaspending,toreplace  Tennesseesformerpaternityandlegitimationstatutes. See 1997Tenn.Pub.Acts.477.Citingthis l provision,Greencontendsthatthedoctrineof resjudicata doesnotbarhispresentpetitionbecause X  thedismissalofhispriorpetitionwasbasedonhislackofstanding. D!   Weconcludethatthisargumentlacksmerit.TherecordindicatesthatGreensfirstpetition #l! seekingtoestablishhisparentageof_A.G.J._Ԁwasdismissed,notbecauseGreenlackedstandingto $X" pursuethepetition,butbecauseGreenfailedtoprosecutetheaction.Underthesecircumstances, $D # Greencannotclaimthebenefitofsection36-2-304(b)(2)(B),andhispresentactionisbarredby %0!$ principlesof resjudicata . &"%   Greeninsiststhat,underthelawineffectatthetimehefiledhisfirstpetition,aputative (#' fatherlackedstandingtopursueapetitiontoestablishparentageifthechildsmotherrefusedto )$( consenttothepetition. See Tenn.CodeAnn.36-2-202(c)(1996)(providingthat [_n]othing_Ԁherein  shallbeconstruedtoauthorizeaputativefathertolegitimateachildortoexecuteanyvoluntary  acknowledgmentofpaternitywithouttheconsentofthemotherofsuchchild); butsee  InreHood ,  930S.W.2d575,57980(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)(holdingthatthisprovisionwasunconstitutional t becauseitviolatedequalprotectionclausesofbothfederalandstateconstitutions).Inthepresent ` case,however,Johnsondidnotrefusetoconsenttothefirstpetition.Rather,Johnsoninitially L  agreedtosubmittobloodteststoestablish_A.G.J._sparentage.Johnsononlymovedfordismissal 8  aftertheactionhadbeenpendingforoverninemonthsandGreenhadnotmadeanyeffortsto $ t prosecutetheaction.  `   WealsorejectGreenscontentionthattheapplicationofrule41.02(3)toparentageactions  8  violatesthisstatespublicpolicytodetermineachildstrueparentageandtofosterrelationships $  betweenachildandthechildsbiologicalparents.Thedeterminationofthisstatespublicpolicy    isprimarilyafunctionofthelegislature. Alcazarv.Hayes ,982S.W.2d845,851(Tenn.1998).   Ifthelegislaturehasenactedastatutethataddressesthesubjectinquestion,then the[public]policy   reflectedthereinmustprevail. Hydev.Hyde ,562S.W.2d194,196(Tenn.1978).     Inenactingthecitedprovisionin1999,thelegislatureclearlydeterminedthepublicpolicy \ ofthisstatewhenitexceptedcertainparentageactionsfromthepreclusiveeffectsofthe resjudicata  H doctrine.Theexceptedactionsincludedthosedismissedunderthepriorlegitimationstatutesifthe 4 dismissalwasbasedon(1) themothersmarriagetoanothermanatthetimeofconception,or  p (2) thepetitionerslackofstanding.Tenn.CodeAnn.36-2-304(b)(2)(B)(Supp.1999).Aswe  \ previouslyindicated,Greencannotclaimthebenefitofthisstatutebecausethedismissalofhisprior H parentageactionfellwithinneitherofthesetwoexceptions.Althoughthelegislaturecouldhave 4 includedwithintheforegoingexceptionspriorlegitimationactionsthatwerevoluntarilyabandoned   bytheputativefather,thelegislaturedidnotdoso.     Accordingly,thetrialcourtsjudgmentofdismissalisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremanded  forfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellant,  JamesR.Green,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#X[XXX < #X XXX[ l #X[XXX }=#__   `     h     ___________________________________ $#t!    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE