WPC&: ziV,HD{s ީ?IwMro@pQ$.\s)"FmʨQu׌8i)b~O%:1ȵC\}fhO# )"x[&=~i\>d]muspyM r*!,0ߢnL ALVIMG3&S|ߤmRac.Qwf&S7 w\\Y5A}>Oz(/*o2d]SNiX3hҺrEwyxpcItذ?6a]+6;& w0CwFqD?` 0 X 0k 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 ! 0 " 0 # 0 $ 0 % 0<% 0<% 08& 0& 0:T' 0 R' 0B'"( 0*U>*  *  *  +  +  + D+'+ AR+@ +o+  ,  ,  ,  ,  , V, V- n- 0C-- 1g4 75 05 B- 6 B86U6 0e6#6UN8 %9M9(9N@9^ B9 1uN9 729w949 : m:\  `&Times New Roman'  LA satisfied Microsoft Office User0AOC .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  6? 24Heading 1  XXX          <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref6// 4Body Text  XXX      0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number<  :Endnote Text    <:Endnote Refe  '&)..      DUXDXUDU  _!  (#X!#  XXU(XXXX"$  (# X$  "  #'  (UX(XU(U(2&$ B:!..      DUXDXUDU  \  `&Times New Romana1a3a4a5a6'dxd.&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK1 WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8a9a10a11a12a_Appellant_s_Attorney_Name___Appellant_a_Appellee_s_Attorney_Name___Appellee_s_QuickMark($      B:!..      DUXDXUDU  ?+ ` hp x X?$ @     $  XXU OPINIONFOOTNOTES $݌   Ќ @  UXX$ @     $  &%U$݌̌ @  U%&$ @   $u  %  &%,U1%B  ݀First,theStatehasaninterestineliminatinguncertaintyandconfusionregardingachildsparentage. e  Second,theStatehasaninterestinenforcingabiologicalfathersobligationtosupporthischildreninorder 8  topreventthemfromenteringwelfarerolls.Third,theStatehasaresponsibilitytoeliminatedisparate  [  treatmentbetweenmaritalandnonmaritalchildren.Fourth,theStatehasaninterestinprotectingthe .  interestsofthebiologicalfatherswhohavemade,orpreparedtomake,asubstantialpersonalinvestmentin  theirrelationshipwiththeirchildren.Fifth,theStatehasaninterestinenablingchildrentoascertainthe  identityoftheirbiologicalparentsformedicalorotherhealthreasons. Cihlarv.Crawford ,2000WL W 1183068*12(Tenn.App.2000). 35=CIOU[a1(1)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.< i.(2n$ B:!..      DUXDXUDU  XU  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(r:$..      DUXDXUDUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularDXg* 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ji)}*rtyBarhU B:!..      DUXDXUDU  _       8Udd8&  0p x (#X0]UQ Ψ]INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Qgg$ATNASHVILLE]ΨԈ    H.` hp x (#X(#HӀMarch7,2001Session > XX]]XX % ) %)DONNAJORUSSELL(FREEMAN),XX]ETAL]XXvs.JOHNROBERTRUSSELLXX]  0  % * %*ԀADirectAppealfromthe% + CircuitCourt%+for% , %,.SumnerCounty.  " No.% - %-t18543Cand20233CTheHonorableArthurMcClellan,Judge.   -  UXX /0k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  XXU No.% 2 %2M200001101_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly31,_2001_ y  No.M200001127_COA_ԄR3CV _       `    ________________________ E    XXXX       & S _  % 3 %3OnAugust5,1998,DonnaJoRussellFreemanfiledacomplaintfordivorceagainstJohnRobert a  Russell.ThepartiesenteredintoaMaritalDissolutionAgreement( MDA)andshortly G thereafterthetrialcourtenteredafinaldecreeofdivorceonDecember21,1998.TheMDAdid - notaddressthelegalrightsandresponsibilitieswithregardtothetwochildren(hereinafter  referredcollectivelyas theminorchildren).ThechildrensbiologicalfatherisCarlRobert  Freeman.DonnaJoRussellandCarlRobertFreemanmarriedonNovember29,1999.  Subsequently,CarlRobertFreemanfiledapetitiontoestablishparentageofJohnandJosiah u Russell.JohnRobertRussellfiledamotionseekingtemporaryvisitationrightsoftheminor [ childrenandaRule60.02motion.ThetrialcourtdeniedJohnRobertRussellstemporary A visitationrightsandconsolidatedhisRule60motionwithCarlRobertFreemansparentage 'w petition.OnMarch10,2000,theCircuitCourtofSumnerCountygrantedCarlRobert  ] Freemanspetitiontoestablishparentage,effectivelymakinghimthefatheroftheminor C children.ThetrialcourtfurtherdeniedJohnRobertRussellsRule60.02motion.OnApril24, ) 2000,JohnRobertRussellfiledthisappeal._  Ԍ  Ќ    XXXX    UXX 'S   XXU      &    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;Judgmentofthe% 4 %4ԀCircuitCourtAffirmedL  (Ԍ d Ќ    UXX    XXU'd@  DonR.Ash,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% 5 %5F&%XXARMERXX%&,J.,and% 6 %6ZC&%XXRAWFORDXX%&,J 0!  joined. "f! % 7 %7JohnR.Phillips,Jr.,fortheappellant,JohnRobertRussell. #2# JosephY._Longmire_,Jr.,fortheappellee,DonnaRussellFreeman. % % BryceC.Ruth,Jr.,fortheappellee,CarlRobertFreeman. z'"'   % 8 %87  OPINION F)$) !  XXXX    !  I.!݌ +b&+ Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX    X  !k  % 9 %9DonnaJoRussellFreeman( Mrs.Freeman)andJohnRobertRussell( Mr.Russell) +H', weremarriedin1979.FollowingthebirthoftheirthirdchildonDecember14,1983,Mr. ,.(- _Russellunderwentavasectomy.!k݌  Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !  !݌  Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !  Duringthemarriage,Mrs.FreemanbegananextramaritalaffairwithCarlRobert | Freeman( Mr.Freeman).Consequently,Mrs.Freemanbecamepregnantinthelaterpartof b 1990.Thefirstchild( childone)fatheredbyMr.FreemanwasborninSeptemberof1991. H Followingthebirth,Mrs.FreemanassuredMr.Russellthatthechildwashischild.Shealso . ~ remindedhimvasectomiesarenot100%effective.!݌  d Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !s  !s݌  J Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !f  Inlate1995Mrs.Freemanbecamepregnantwithasecondchild.Thesecondchild  0 ( childtwo)fatheredbyMr.FreemanwasborninSeptember1996.Again,Mr.Russell    confrontedMrs.Freemanaboutthebirthofthesetwochildren( minorchildren).Her    explanationwasthesameasbefore,thatvasectomiesarenot100%effective.Consequently,Mr.   Russelltreatedtheminorchildrenashisown.However,itwasnotuntilMr.Russellhad x  problemswithhisreproductiveorgansdidhefindouthewasnotthefatherofthetwominor ^  children.Sadly,Mrs.FreemanadmittedtoMr.RussellsheandMr.Freemanhavebeenhaving D  anextramaritalaffair,whichultimatelyledtothebirthsoftheminorchildren.!f݌ *z  Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !  ! ݌ ` Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !   Uponlearningofthisinformation,Mr.RussellcontinuedtolivewithMrs.Freeman F whileattemptingtoworkonthemarriage.Theirattemptsatreconciliationfalteredandshortly , thereafterMrs.FreemanfiledfordivorceinAugustof1998citingirreconcilabledifferences.  Duringthedivorceproceedings,Mr.RussellandMrs.FreemanenteredintoaMarital  DissolutionAgreement( MDA).Mr.RussellandMrs.Freemanwerebothrepresentedby  attorneysduringthedivorceproceedings.TheMDAprovidedprovisionsforJoelThomas t Russell,theonlyremainingminorchildfatheredbyMr.Russell.However,theMDAdidnot Z makeprovisionsforthetwominorchildrenfatheredbyMr.Freeman.! !݌ @ Ќ    XXXX  !  XXXX      !$  !$@%݌ &v Ќ    XXXX    ThetrialcourtgrantedadivorceonDecember21,1998,tothepartiesbasedupon  \ irreconcilabledifferencesandawardedjointlegalcustodyofJoelThomasRussellwithprimary B custodybeingawardedtothewife.Followingthedivorce,Mrs.FreemanallowedMr.Russell ( visitationwiththetwominorchildrenbornoftherelationshipbetweenMr.FreemanandMrs.  Freemanwithnosupportobligations.Thereafter,Mr.andMrs.Freemanbeganlivingtogether  withthetwominorchildren.InSeptember1999,Mr.Russellsliberalvisitationwiththeminor   childrenwaslimitedtoThursdays.OnNovember29,1999,Mr.andMrs.Freemanmarried. p!   X XOnDecember20,1999,husbandfiledaMotionpursuanttoT.R.C.P.60.02forrelief <#" fromtheDecember21,1998,finalorderofdivorce.ShortlythereafterMr.Russellsliberal "$r# visitationwiththeminorchildrenwasterminated.OnJanuary21,2000,Mr.Freeman, %X $ biologicalfatherofthechildren,filedapetitionwiththetrialcourttoestablishparentageofthe %>!% minorchildren.IntheJanuary21,2000,pleadingMr.Freemanstatesthatgenetictestinghad &$"& confirmedthathewasthebiologicalfatheroftheminorchildren. ' #'  X  Subsequently,Mr.RussellfiledamotionaskingCircuitCourtfortemporaryvisitation )$) withtheminorchildren.OnMarch3,2000,thetrialcourtdeniedthehusbandsmotionfor l*%* temporaryvisitationwiththeminorchildrenandconsolidatedMr.RussellsRule60motionwith R+&+ Mr.Freemanspetitiontoestablishpaternity.AhearingwasheldonMarch10,2000,regarding 8,', Mr.RussellsRule60motionandMr.Freemanspetitiontoestablishpaternity.Afterahearing -n(- onthematter,thetrialcourtgrantedMr.Freemanspetitiontoestablishparentageanddenied  Mr.RussellsRule60.02motion.OnApril24,2000,Mr.Russellfilednoticeofappealciting  thathisconstitutionallyprotectedrightsofparenthoodhavebeenimpinged,thatthedoctrineof | equitableestoppeloperatestobarMrs.Freemanfromdenyinghispaternityoftheminor b children,andthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninnotgrantingreliefpursuantto H Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.UXX . ~   "$  (#X(#$  E.` hp x (# XE"0  XXUII."0B1݌  # Ќ$ X(#X(#$  UXX!  XXU    X!(2  !(22݌   Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !3  ThefirstissuetoconsideriswhetherT.C.A.362304,asappliedbythetrialcourt,    violatedMr.Russellsconstitutionallyprotectedrightsofparenthood.Therelevantportionsof    T.C.A.362304areasfollows:!3i3݌ k  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !5  !5W5݌ Q  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X X XB+ ` hp x X(#B!5  Presumptionofparentage.!(a)Amanisrebuttablypresumedtobethefatherof 7  achildif:!56݌ m  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !7  !7J8݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !8  (1)Heandthechildsmotheraremarriedorhavebeenmarriedtoeachotherand 9 thechildisbornduringthemarriageorwithinthreehundred(300)daysafterthe  marriageisterminatedbydeath,annulmentordeclarationofinvalidity,or  divorce;!89݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !/;  !/;;݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !N<  ***!N<<݌ g Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !=   `  (A)Hehasacknowledgedhispaternityofthechildinwritingfiled M underaputativefatherregistryestablishedbythedepartmentofchildrenservices, 3 pursuantto362318;!==݌ i Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !?  !??݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !@  ***!@A݌ 5 Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !A   ` (4)Whilethechildisundertheageofmajority,hereceivesthechildinto  hishomeandopenlyholdsthechildoutashisnaturalchild;or!AB݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !C  !CC݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    ![D   ` (5)Genetictestshavebeenadministeredasprovidedin247112,an } exclusionhasnotoccurred,andthetestresultsshowthatastatisticalprobability c  ofparentageofninetyfivepercent(95%)orgreater.![DD݌ I!  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !F  !FF݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !G  ***!G H݌ #e" Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !H  !H?I݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    ! J   `  (c)Allpriorpresumptionsofparentageestablishedbytheprevious $1 $ paternityandlegitimizationstatutesandcasesareabolished.   x ! J^J݌ %!% Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X X!L  !LsL݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !L    Recentlyin Cihlarv.Crawford ,2000WL1183068*8(Tenn.App.2000),thecourt '"' specificallyaddressedtheconstitutionalityoftheparentagestatutesenactedbythelegislature. y(#( Thecourtidentifiedfivecompellinggovernmentalintereststhatgiveputativebiologicalfathers _)$) arighttoestablishpaternityofachildborntoamarriedwoman.%  %O  UXX1!?XXU ; :  1      ׀UXX SeeId. at*12.Whenassertinga E*%* claimofparentage,thebiologicalfathermustassert twoessentialingredients. Id. Cihlar provides:!L@M݌ ++{&+      UU  !  XXU    !eQ  !eQQ݌ +:', Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X XB+ ` hp x X B!FR  First,theproceduremustcomplywithminimumproceduraldueprocess   requirementswhichincludeadequatenotice,anopportunitytopresentevidence,  andadecisionbasedontheevidencebyanimpartialtrieroffact.Second,the | procedureshouldenablethetrieroffacttoconsiderthelevelofcommitmentto b parenthoodthatthepresumptivefatherorfathershavedemonstrated.!FRR݌ H Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    XB+ ` hp x X B!U  !UOV݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X!W  Id. at*1213.!W|W݌  d Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !sX  !sXX݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !@Y    Thiscase,like Cihlar ,isadisagreementbetweentwomenwhoarepresumptivelythe  0 fatherofthetwominorchildren.Mr.Russellispresumptivelytheminorchildrensfather    becausehewasmarriedtoMrs.Freemanatthetimetheywereconceived.Infact,Mrs.Freeman    hadmadenumerousrepresentationstohimthathewasthefatherofthetwominorchildreneven   afterMr.Russellunderwentavasectomyfollowingthebirthofhisthirdchild,Joel. See T.C.A. x  362304(a)(1).However,genetictestinghasconfirmedthatMr.Freemanisalso ^  presumptivelytheminorchildrensfatherbyastatisticalprobabilityof95%orgreater. See D   T.C.A.362304(a)(5).Inadditiontothegeneticproof,Mr.AndMrs.Freemanhavelivedin *z  atraditionalfamilysettingformorethantwoyearswithMr.Freemanopenlyholdingtheminor ` childrenoutashisnaturalchildren.Furthermore,Mr.Freemanconsentedinwritingtobenamed F theminorchildrensfatherontheirbirthcertificatesandrequestedthethattheirnamesbe , changedontheParentagePetitionhefiled.!@YY݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !_  !__݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !u`    Inordertoresolvetheissueofparentage,thiscourtshouldtakeintoconsideration:(1)  thestabilityofthechildscurrentfamilyenvironment;(2)theexistenceoftheongoingfamily t unit;(3)thesourceorsourcesofthechildssupport;(4)thechildsrelationshipwiththe Z presumptivefather;and(5)thechildsphysical,mentalandemotionalneeds. Cihlar ,2000WL @ 1183068at*13.!u``݌ &v Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !c  !cc݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X!md  DonnaJoRussellFreemanmarriedthebiologicalfather,CarlRobertFreeman,on B November29,1999.Sincethemarriagetheyhavelivedinatraditionalfamilyatmosphere. ( Shortlyfollowingthemarriage,Mr.AndMrs.Freemandecideditwouldbeinthebestinterests  oftheminorchildrentosevertheirrelationshipwithMr.Russellduetotheconfusion  surroundingMr.Russellsclaimsthathewasthefatheroftheminorchildren.!mdd݌   Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !bg  !bgg݌ p!  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !Ch  Similarto Cihlar ,thiscourtfindsthatthe parentsinterestandabilitytoprovideachild V"! monetaryandparentalsupportarerelevant. Id. at*14.Theweightofthisconsiderationfavors <#" Mr.Freeman.Mr.Freemanprovidesandcontinuestoprovidechildsupporttotheminor "$r# children.FollowingtheFreemansmarriageandduringMr.Russellsperiodicvisitationwiththe %X $ minorchildren,Mr.Russellneverprovidedchildsupportforthem.WedorecognizethatMr. %>!% RussellprovidedsupporttotheminorchildrenduringhismarriagewithMrs.Freeman,however, &$"& thesupportendedwiththeMDA.TherecordclearlyshowsthatMr.Russellenteredintothe ' #' MDAknowingtheagreementdidnotprovideprovisionsregardinghisvisitationorchildsupport (#( obligations.WeareconvincedbythisaffirmativeactthatMr.Russellwaivedanylegalrighthe )$) mighthavetotheminorchildren.Consequently,wefindtheweightoftheevidence l*%* overwhelminglyfavorsMr.Freeman.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtfindingMr. R+&+ FreemanthefatherofJohnLawrenceFreemanandJosiahM.Freemanisaffirmed.!Chh݌ 8,', Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X!n  !no݌ -n(- Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !p  III.!pRp݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !7q  !7qq݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !r    Thesecondissueforthiscourttoconsideriswhetherthedoctrineofequitableestoppel | shouldoperatetopreventMr.andMrs.FreemanfromdenyingMr.Russellsrightstotheminor b children.WhileestoppeldoctrinesarenotfavoredunderTennesseelaw,theessentialelements H inprovingasuccessfulequitableestoppelclaimiswellsettled. Sturkiev.Bottoms ,310S.W.2d . ~ 451(Tenn.1958); Callahanv.TownofMiddleton ,292S.W.2d501(1954).Thecourtin  d  ConsumerCreditUnionv.Hite ,801S.W.2d822,825(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),providedthe  J essentialelementstobeproven:!rVr݌  0 Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !v  !vjv݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X XB+ ` hp x X B!v  Theessentialelementsofanequitableestoppelasrelatedtothepartyestopped    aresaidtobe(1)Conductwhichamountstoafalserepresentationorconcealment   ofmaterialfacts,or,atleast,whichiscalculatedtoconveytheimpressionthatthe x  factsareotherwisethan,andinconsistentwith,thosewhichtheparty ^  subsequentlyattemptstoassert;(2)Intention,oratleastexpectationthatsuch D  conductshallbeacteduponbytheotherparty;(3)Knowledge,actualor *z  constructiveoftherealfacts.Asrelatedtothepartyclaimingtheestoppelthey ` are(1)Lackofknowledgeandofthemeansofknowledgeofthetruthastothe F factsinquestion;(2)Relianceupontheconductofthepartyestopped;and(3) , Actionbasedthereonofsuchacharacterastochangehispositionprejudicially.!vw݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !I|  !I||݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X X!h}  citing Callahan ,292S.W.2d501(1954).!h}}݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !~  !~8݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !    Here,Mr.RussellcontendsequitableestoppelappliesintheinstantcasebecauseMrs. Z Freemanrepresentedtohimforseveralyearsthatbothminorchildrenwerefatheredbyhim. @ Accordingly,Mr.Russelltreatedthesechildrenashisownforoverfiveyearsandprovided &v financialandemotionalsupporttothesechildrenduringthatperiodoftime.However,priorto  \ thedivorceaction,Mr.Russellbecameawarethathewasnotthebiologicalfatherofthe B children.Duringnegotiationsforadivorcesettlement,bothMr.RussellandMrs.Freeman ( acknowledgedthattheminorchildrenwerethebiologicalchildrenofMr.CarlFreeman.  Subsequently,theyenteredintoaMDA.TheMDAmadenoprovisionforvisitationorsupport  ofthetwominorchildrenbornbyMr.Freemannordidtheagreementmakespecialprovisions   regardingpotentiallegalrightsMr.Russellmighthavewiththeminorchildren.Mr.Russell p!  assertsthatheandMrs.Freemanhadasilentagreementallowinghimvisitationwiththe V"! children.IntheinterimMr.Russellvisitedwiththechildren,butshortlythereaftertheFreemans <#" disallowedMr.Russellvisitationwiththechildren.Mr.Russellfailedtoprovidesupportto "$r# thesechildrenduringthisinterimbasis.!݌ %X $ Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !ц  !ц#݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X!  WhileMr.Russellcontendstherewasasilentagreementregardingvisitationrights,we &$"& areoftheopinionthatsomethingasimportantasvisitationrightsshouldhavebeenspecifiedin ' #' theMDA.Bothofthepartieswererepresentedbyseparateattorneysduringthecourseofthe (#( MDA.TheMDAmadenoprovisionsforvisitationorsupportregardingtheminorchildren. )$) TheseomissionsarecentraltothisissuebecauseMr.Russelleffectivelyrecognizedthathewas l*%* notthefatherofthesetwominorchildren,thus,waivinganyclaimtoparentagehemighthaveto R+&+ theminorchildrenbysigningoffontheMDA.Basedontheabovementionedfacts,weareof 8,', theopinionthatMr.Russellsequitableestoppelclaimhasnomerit.!݌ -n(- Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X!E  !E݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !r  IV.!rč݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  !݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X!u  Thefinalissueforthiscourttoconsideronappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredin b rulingthatTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02wasnotaviablereliefoptionforMr.Russell.Thescopeof H reviewonappealislimitedtowhetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretioningrantingornot . ~ grantingthereliefrequestedpursuanttoRule60. Banksv.DementConst.Co.,Inc. ,817  d S.W.2d16,18(Tenn.1991).Theruleprovides:!uՏ݌  J Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !Z  !Z݌  0 Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  Rule60.02Mistakes;Inadvertence;ExcusableNeglect;Fraud,etc.!ߓ݌    Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  ݀!T݌    Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  Onmotionanduponsuchtermsasarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyortheparty's   legalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthefollowingreasons:!6݌ x  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !ޗ  ݀!ޗ0݌ ^  Ќ    UXX   < (03J""  X ,E.` hp x (#X E  ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXXU2(  1  )3   4   mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;݌ D  Ќ  ' X 44` X(#' X  UXX!  XXU    X XE.` hp x (#X E!v  !v)݌̌    UXX  ""   ,XE.` hp x (#X(#E  ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXXU2(  2  )3   4   Fraud(whetherheretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,or ` othermisconductofanadverseparty;݌ F Ќ  X' X(#44` X(#'   UXX!  XXU    E.` hp x (#X(#E!f  ݀!f݌ , Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X X!  ***!P݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  !8݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  (5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.!k݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X!  !݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !v    ThepartymovingforRule60reliefhastheburdenofprovingthatheisentitledtorelief, Z andtheremustbeproofofthebasisonwhichreliefissought. FederatedIns.Co.v.Lethcoe , @ 18S.W.3d621,623624(Tenn.2000); Banks ,817S.W.2dat18.!vȦ݌ &v Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  !5݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X!  ThetrialcourtinitsrulingdeniedthereliefrequestedbyMr.Russell.Initsruling,the B trialcourtspecificallyfound:!݌ ( Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !8  !8݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X X XB+ ` hp x X(#B!  Mr.Russelltestifiedthatatthetimeoftheentryofthecontractandatthetimeof  theapprovaloftheMaritalDissolutionAgreementandentryofthedivorceby   JudgeGoodall,hewasrepresentedbycounsel,heunderstoodwhatwasinthe p!  MaritalDissolutionAgreementandheacknowledgedtoMr.Longmirethatthere V"! wasnomistake,therewasnoadverse,therewasnosurprise,therewasnoneglect <#" onhispart,thatheknewthecontents.Conversely,heintroducesparoleevidence "$r# asitpertainstotheentryoftheMDAwhereinheindicatesthathewasassured %X $ andMrs.Freemanconcursthathewasassuredthathewouldbepermittedcertain %>!% visitationandtomaintainacertainrelationshipwiththetwoboysthatarethe &$"& subjectmatterofthismotion.!׬݌ ' #' Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !^  !^݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !}  Thequestionthatwouldariseatthatpointinanefforttodoananalysisiswhether )$) ornotthatwouldgiveriseunder60.02(5)fortheCourttogranthimrelief.The l*%* casesthatIvereadunder60.02(5)construethatsectionverynarrowly,and R+&+ frankly,ImoftheopinionthatthecasesIvereadwiththisonewouldnotfall 8,', withintheparametersof60.02(5).!}ϲ݌ -n(- Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !v  !vȵ݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X X X!C  Weagreewiththetrialcourtsassessment.First,Mr.Russelltestifiedthathewasnot  surprisedormistaken,norwereanymisrepresentationsmadetohimwhenheenteredtheMDA. | Clearly,Rule60.02(1)wouldnotbeaviableoptionofreliefforMr.Russell.Next,Mr.Russell b arguesthatRule60.02(2)wouldapply.ThetrialcourthadgreatconcernsregardingRule H 60.02(2)asitappliedtothiscase:!C݌ . ~ Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !8  !8݌  d Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X X XB+ ` hp x X B!  Whatbothersmeisthatperhapsunder60.02(2),whichwasnotplead,butthere  J mightbeanargumentthattherewasfraudintheinducement,baseduponMrs.  0 Russellsassertionthathewouldbepermittedcontinuedcontactwiththeseboys.    !׺݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !Ҽ  !Ҽ$݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X X X!  WhilethetrialcourtexpressedsomeconcernsregardingRule60.02,wedonotthink x  therewasfraudintheinducement.TherecordreflectsthatMr.Russelldidexercisesomeform ^  ofvisitationwiththeminorchildrenforasmallperiodoftimefollowingthedivorce.However, D  soonthereafterMrs.Freemanfeltitwasinthebestinterestofthechildrentoterminatetheir *z  relationshipwithMr.Russell.Herreasoningformakingthisdecisionwasbasedonthe ` confusionitwascausingthetwochildren.Mrs.FreemanagreesthatsheallowedMr.Russell F visitationwiththechildren,butnotforaspecificperiodoftime.Further,Mr.Russelldidnot , paychildsupportforthechildrenwhilehewasexercisingvisitationwiththem.Duringthe  settlementnegotiationsMr.Russellwasrepresentedbycounsel,howevertheyfailedtoprovide  provisionsintheMDAreflectingvisitationorsupport.Wecannotfindademonstrationoffraud  onbehalfofMrs.FreemanwhensheterminatedMr.Russellsperiodicvisitationprivileges.!݌ t Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !|  !|݌ Z Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !]  Lastly,Mr.RussellcontendsthatreliefshouldbegrantedbasedonRule60.02(5)catch @ allprovision.CourtshaveheldthatRule60.02(5)canonlyberaisedinthemostunique, &v exceptionalorextraordinarycircumstances. NCNBBankofNorthCarolinav.Thrailkill ,856  \ S.W.2d150(Tenn.Ct.App.1993); Gainesv.Gaines ,599S.W.2d561(Tenn.Ct.App.1980). B Furthermore,courtsconstrueRule60.02(5)narrowlyduetothevalueoffinalityinjudgments. (  Id.!]݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !  !݌  Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    !e  Mr.RussellcontendsthatMr.andMrs.Freemanactionscausedhimtoforegodefining   hisrightsintheMDA,thus,makingitaveryunique,exceptionalorextraordinarycase. p!  ConstruingRule60.02(5)narrowly,wecannotfindthatthecircumstancessurroundingthiscase V"! areunique,exceptionalorextraordinary.Infact,Mr.RussellfreelyenteredintotheMDAwhile <#" representedbycounsel.AsimportantasvisitationwiththesechildrenseemtobetoMr.Russell "$r# heshouldhavesimplypreservedanylegalrightshemighthavewiththesechildrenintheMDA. %X $ HefailedtodosoandbydoingsowedonotfindthisisauniquecaseforRule60.02(5)reliefin %>!% lieuofMr.Freemanbeingthebiologicalfatherofthesetwominorchildren.Accordingly,we &$"& cannotfindthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingreliefunderRule60.02.!e݌ ' #' Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X!  !݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    !  V.! ݌ )$) Ќ    UXX  !  XXU    X!  !L݌̌    UXX  !  XXU    X X!  Forthereasonssetforthabove,theorderofthetrialcourtestablishingparentageinfavor R+&+  ofMr.FreemanandthedenialofMr.RussellsRule60motionisaffirmed.Inaddition,wefind 8,', thatMr.Russellsequitableestoppelclaimhasnomerit.Costsonappealareassessedagainst  Mr.Russell.!5݌       UXX  !  XXU    X!  ݀!݌ | Ќ    UXX  XXU h_________________________________ . ~ DONR.ASH,SPECIALJUDGE  d   J   0      hUXX