ÿWPCé ZQ¸µª=Ñ×èô…ù¶?5%äQªñ¹àN¶Û"h1{cG<éYGo๒º°€îöz\À.É99‰4*xì^7v©vÖ­‚Þo;Ûk~Ï©ú€:;Y,çˆ^qŠ!ée‘xæ´Ät÷Îß=¼¾,à AUЦ\zîß·pu{‰û˜³µÔ‹k qf_øý§ Ó1Ö¶»e×€÷ó—]<þæ„e21ÛX +Ñ„7ȯìõè'B€s¼ÿ,‘¼›K–é”ëlF¬¦ÈaF±3Þ@²påÇQëë¯ìþ'2 ö*åDÌ›e$‘Õð#_;«ž$ ÉPàx«®*P¯,ªÉPXªv‰]ª’ Y¯˜¨©lXœë­–ÊÜQEöYü˜ŠÑ©Û"Iú|öý$ˆ&Ä'ë¦í91É“$ œÂ„ý×êú4Þ÷Æ`ÏŠÚ#jÏ>Öˆ®©ÏL\o®íÍhØúö¸øt‘+xK#4äŒÑ§·áÙê` N{èð«PæÚvÁš/!±¡y&JŸ¤a¢4QØ^€íëÆ{Ún\jïUw‚Y6ÅkÂfE]°ûïÓÉ'I÷‡E7h¢íÛ€¾#~³Þ ÍAS ’L«[¢ÿµ.Vb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ LÐ 0D Æ` Æ& Æì Ʋ#ÁxN9™;ÔEÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜbÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ 0ëææææ BÑÑ 0¤î D3’ D-Å 0Kòò AS=Æ 0¤V 0Dú A«>»Û~]-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&-0^¤3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ BÝ ƒRý‡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€On€appeal,€the€State€acknowledges€that€the€attorney€representing€the€State€at€that€time€should€not€have€agreedÐ ° Ðto€the€entry€of€this€ð ðAgreed€Orderðð.€€Relying€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„2307(c),€the€State€argues€it€was€not€MotherððsÐ tÄ Ðattorney€and,€therefore,€could€not€bind€her€to€this€agreement.€€Due€to€our€resolution€of€this€case,€we€need€not€decide€thisÐ 8ˆ Ðissue€and€pretermit€same.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Ý ƒRý‡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€does€not€mean,€however,€that€Father€could€not€raise€nonparentage€as€a€defense€in€the€Maryland€Court,Ð ° Ðassuming€that€State€would€allow€this€defense€to€be€raised€a€decade€after€the€original€order€determining€parentage€wasÐ tÄ Ðentered. - ù-(|G2ý‡$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨íò»»Ô d(|3?n$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?n$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼u»»»ÔÑ8€YÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÔuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼u»îîÔ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€1,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XYÉX»¼uÔÌÌÌò òÔ#†¼u»XXYÉô#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ex€rel.€NANCY€Ô_ÔSCHLEIGHÔ_Ô€v.Ð Ò " ЀSTEVEN€Ô_ÔSCHLEIGHÔ_Ô,€JR.ó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌÔ€XYÉX»¼uÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  \  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€76880€€€€€€Bill€Ô_ÔSwannÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ øH  ÐÌFILED€OCTOBER€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ Ð  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„1237„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ · ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌÌThis€is€an€action€to€enforce€a€child€support€order€entered€against€Steven€Ô_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô€in€another€state.€Ð b² ÐAfter€the€State€of€Tennessee€filed€a€petition€seeking€enforcement€of€the€out„of„state€order,€StevenÐ Nž ÐÔ_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô€denied€he€was€the€biological€father€of€the€minor€child.€€The€Referee€entered€an€orderÐ :Š Ðrequiring€both€Mr.€and€Ms.€Ô_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô€to€submit€to€DNA€testing.€€When€Ms.€Ô_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô€did€not€complyÐ &v Ðwith€this€order,€the€Referee€recommended€the€case€be€dismissed.€€The€Trial€Court€confirmed€theÐ b Ðfindings€of€the€Referee€and€dismissed€the€case.€€The€State€appeals.€€We€reverse.Ð þN ÐÌò òÌà@µ µ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ  Ðà@ü ü ìàCircuit€Court€Reversed;€Case€Remanded.ˆÐ ®þ ÐÌó óòòÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÐ r"Â! ÐòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ^#®" ÐÌÌPaul€Summers€and€Stuart€Wilson„Patton,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€State€of€TennesseeÐ "&r!% Ðòòex€rel.óó€Nancy€Ô_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô.Ð '^"& ÐÌÌRoger€D.€Hyman,€Powell,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Steven€Ô_ÔSchleighÔ_Ô,€Jr.€Ð Ò)"%) ÐÌÐ  ª+ú&+ýà ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€8,€1986,€Nancy€Schleigh€(ð ðMotherðð)€was€granted€an€absolute€divorce€fromÐ `° ÐSteven€Schleigh€(ð ðFatherðð)€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hartford€County,€Maryland.€€Mother€wasÐ L œ Ðawarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€minor€child€who€was€born€on€December€12,€1980.€€Father€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðcharged€generally€with€the€support€of€the€said€minor€child€òòof€the€partiesóóðð€(emphasis€added),€but€noÐ $ t Ðspecific€amount€of€child€support€was€set€forth€in€the€judgment.€€Although€not€contained€in€the€record,Ð  ` Ðthe€State€of€Maine€apparently€issued€an€order€in€October€of€1989€requiring€Father€to€pay€childÐ ü L  Ðsupport€in€the€amount€of€$33.00€per€week.€€When€Father€fell€behind€in€his€child€support€payments,Ð è 8  Ðthe€State€of€Maryland€sought€to€register€and€enforce€the€Maine€support€order€in€the€State€ofÐ Ô$  ÐTennessee.€€Upon€receipt€of€this€request,€the€State€of€Tennessee€filed€a€petition€seeking€to€enforceÐ À  Ðthe€interstate€child€support€transmittal.€€Father€was€in€arrears€in€the€amount€of€$4,057.32€when€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpetition€was€filed.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€petition€was€filed€in€the€Knox€County€Circuit€Court,€Division€IV,€FatherÐ pÀ Ðdecided€to€deny€he€was€the€biological€father€of€the€minor€child.€€As€a€result,€on€October€23,€1997,Ð \¬ Ðthe€Referee€in€the€Knox€County€Circuit€Court€issued€an€Agreed€Order€for€Genetic€Testing.€€WhileÐ H˜ Ðthis€was€called€an€ð ðAgreed€Order,ðð€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€Mother€actually€agreedÐ 4„ Ðto€this€testing.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€was,€however,€agreed€to€by€the€State€and€Father.€€In€any€event,€the€Agreed€OrderÐ  p Ðstated€that€the€initiating€agency€in€Maryland€would€arrange€for€all€parties€and€the€minor€child€toÐ  \ Ðsubmit€to€DNA€testing.€€The€Referee€issued€a€second€order€that€same€day€requiring€Father€to€payÐ øH Ð$52.50€per€week€towards€his€current€and€arrearage€child€support€obligations.€€Father€eventually€filedÐ ä4 Ðan€Affidavit€of€Indigency€and€was€appointed€an€attorney€to€represent€him.€€The€next€document€in€theÐ Ð  Ðrecord€is€the€Findings€and€Recommendations€of€the€Referee.€€In€pertinent€part,€the€Findings€state:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€cause€came€to€be€heard€.€.€.€upon€a€Motion€to€dismiss€by€theÐ ”ä Ðcounsel€for€the€Defendant;€and€the€Court€after€hearing€the€testimonyÐ €Ð Ðof€the€Defendant,€Steven€Schleigh,€Jr.,€and€the€statements€of€counsel,Ð l¼ Ðand€it€appearing€to€the€Court€that€Steven€Schleigh,€Jr.,€has€fullyÐ X ¨ Ðcomplied€with€the€requirements€set€forth€in€the€Agreed€Order€forÐ D!” ÐGenetic€Testing€heretofore€entered€in€this€cause€on€November€17,Ð 0"€  Ð1997,€but€that€the€Petitioner,€Nancy€Schleigh€has€failed€to€cooperateÐ #l! Ðwith€the€scheduled€DNA€paternity€testing,€despite€numerousÐ $X" Ðopportunities,€and€despite€a€Court€order€specifically€directing€saidÐ ô$D # ÐDNA€paternity€testing;€and€it€further€appearing€that€this€cause€hasÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€reset€before€the€Court€on€numerous€occasions,€and€that€StevenÐ Ì&"% ÐSchleigh,€Jr.€has€appeared€for€Court€on€every€occasion,€but€that€thereÐ ° Ðhas€been€no€response€from€Petitioner,€Nancy€Schleigh,€nor€anyÐ œì Ðcooperation€from€her,€and€the€Court€therefore€finding€that€becauseÐ ˆØ ÐPetitioner,€Nancy€Schleigh,€has€failed€to€comply€with€the€Orders€ofÐ tÄ Ðthis€Court,€and€the€Court€being€of€the€opinion€that€DefendantððsÐ `° ÐMotion€to€Dismiss€is€well„taken;€it€is€thereforeÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àFound€and€Recommended€that€this€cause€should€be€dismissedÐ $ t Ðwith€prejudice€to€the€refiling€of€same.€€Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Findings€and€Recommendations€of€the€Referee€were€confirmed€by€the€KnoxÐ è 8  ÐCounty€Circuit€Court€Judge€in€July€of€2001.€€The€State€then€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment.€€The€State€claimed,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€a€Tennessee€court€did€not€have€authority€to€modify€theÐ À  Ðchild€support€order€which€had€been€entered€in€another€State€and€Fatherððs€only€avenue€of€relief€fromÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€terms€of€that€order€was€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Harford€County,€Maryland.€€The€motion€to€alterÐ ˜è  Ðor€amend€the€judgment€was€denied€by€the€Trial€Court.€€The€State€appeals€the€dismissal€of€this€action,Ð „Ô  Ðarguing:€€(1)€Fatherððs€alleged€nonpaternity€was€not€a€defense€to€the€enforcement€of€the€out„of„stateÐ pÀ Ðchild€support€order;€(2)€even€if€Father€is€not€the€biological€father,€this€still€would€be€no€defense€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€amount€of€child€support€he€already€owed;€and€(3)€Father€still€would€owe€the€amount€in€arrearsÐ H˜ Ðregardless€of€whether€or€not€Mother€had€complied€with€the€DNA€testing€Order.Ð 4„ ÐÌà@))%ìàòòò òDiscussionóóó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ ä4 Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ ¼  Ðissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ ”ä ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€is€an€action€to€enforce€the€out€of€state€child€support€order€pursuant€to€theÐ X ¨ ÐUniform€Interstate€Family€Support€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„2301,€òòet€seq.óó€€This€Act€explicitlyÐ D!” Ðprovides€that€nonparentage€is€not€a€defense€if€parentage€has€already€been€determined€by€law.€Ð 0"€  ÐSpecifically,€the€statute€provides:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò ò36„5„2315.€€Nonparentage€as€defense.ó ó€ð!ð€A€party€whose€parentage€ofÐ ô$D # Ða€child€has€been€previously€determined€by€or€pursuant€to€law€may€notÐ ä%4!$ Ðplead€nonparentage€as€a€defense€to€a€proceeding€under€parts€20„29€ofÐ Ð& "% Ðthis€chapter.€Ð¼' #&` x` x Ðâ âÐ ¨(ø#' Ðà  àà ` àIn€light€of€the€clear€language€of€the€statute,€Father€should€not€have€been€permitted€toÐ ° Ðraise€nonparentage€as€a€defense€to€the€enforcement€proceeding.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Unfortunately,€Father€was€allowedÐ œì Ðâ âto€raise€this€defense,€resulting€in€the€Refereeððs€entering€an€ð ðAgreed€Orderðð€requiring€both€parentsÐ ˆØ Ðto€submit€to€DNA€testing.€€This€order,€in€turn,€became€the€genesis€of€the€dismissal€of€the€case€andÐ tÄ Ðthis€appeal.€€The€Circuit€Court€for€Harford€County,€Maryland€had€determined€that€the€minor€childÐ `° Ðwas€a€child€ð ðof€the€partiesðð,€and,€therefore,€had€determined€that€the€minor€child€was€the€child€ofÐ L œ ÐFather.€€The€State€argues,€and€correctly€so,€that€Father€had€no€right€to€contest€paternity€in€thisÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€UIFSA€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„5„2315.€€In€short,€even€if€the€DNA€testingÐ $ t Ðhad€been€done€and€it€had€shown€that€Father€was€not€the€biological€father€of€the€minor€child,€such€aÐ  ` Ðfinding€would€have€been€of€no€use€to€Father€in€his€defense€of€this€enforcement€proceeding.€€ThisÐ ü L  Ðbeing€so,€dismissal€of€the€action,€particularly€upon€what€apparently€was€an€oral€motion€to€dismiss,Ð è 8  Ðwas€error.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€also€are€troubled€by€the€fact€that€the€record€contains€neither€a€written€petitionÐ ¬ü  Ðseeking€to€hold€Mother€in€contempt€for€failure€to€comply€with€the€order€at€issue€nor€a€written€motionÐ ˜è  Ðto€dismiss€because€of€her€failure€to€comply.€€Because€no€petition€or€motion€was€filed,€Mother€wasÐ „Ô  Ðgiven€no€opportunity€to€file€a€response€setting€forth€any€potential€justification€for€her€failure€toÐ pÀ Ðcomply€with€the€order.€€Likewise,€she€was€given€no€opportunity€to€raise€a€legal€defense€to€being€heldÐ \¬ Ðin€contempt.€€Also€absent€from€the€record€is€any€specific€order€actually€finding€Mother€in€contempt.€Ð H˜ ÐWe€cannot€discern€why€Mother€did€not€comply€with€the€order€and€what€attempts€were€made€by€her,Ð 4„ Ðif€any,€to€comply.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àòòEven€ifóó€the€record€supported€a€conclusion€that€Mother€was€in€contempt€for€failure€toÐ øH Ðsubmit€to€the€DNA€testing,€this€case€should€not€have€been€dismissed€since€Fatherððs€claimedÐ ä4 Ðnonparentage€is€not€a€defense€to€enforcement€of€the€out„of„state€support€order.€€The€child€is€theÐ Ð  Ðultimate€beneficiary€of€the€child€support€payments€made€by€Father.€€ð ð[A]s€a€general€rule,€a€custodialÐ ¼  Ðparent€may€not€waive€her€minor€childððs€right€of€support.ðð€€òòHuntley€v.€Huntleyóó,€61€S.W.3d€329,€335„Ð ¨ø Ð36€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Since€the€child€is€the€ultimate€beneficiary€of€this€child€support,€we€do€notÐ ”ä Ðbelieve€dismissal€would€have€been€an€appropriate€sanction€even€if€there€had€been€a€proper€findingÐ €Ð Ðof€contempt€related€to€a€valid€defense€of€Fatherððs.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€this€action.€Ð D!” ÐBecause€our€holding€that€Fatherððs€alleged€nonparentage€is€not€a€defense€to€this€enforcement€action,Ð 0"€  Ðit€is€unnecessary€that€we€address€the€remaining€issues€raised€by€the€State,€and€those€issues€areÐ #l! Ðpretermitted.€€Because€Fatherððs€nonparentage€is€not€a€defense€to€this€action,€on€remand€we€also€setÐ $X" Ðaside€the€previously€entered€order€requiring€the€parties€to€submit€to€DNA€testing.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÐ ¸'#& Ðà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€granting€Mr.€Schleighððs€motion€to€dismiss€isÐ ˆØ Ðreversed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÐ tÄ Ðrequired€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellee,€Mr.Ð `° ÐSteven€Schleigh.€Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ¬ü  Ð