### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE N ove m be r 8, 200 6 S es sio n R. D. M. v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE, DE PA RTM ENT OF CH ILDR EN’ S SE R V IC ES , IN TH E M A TT ER OF : D
. J. M
. M
. , JR
. , D
. O. B. 8/2 8/2 000
Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Roane County No. 13497 Hon. Th om as A. Austin, Ju dge

No. E2006-00283-COA- R3-JV - F ILED DECEMBE R 19, 2006

Appellant, who was married to the m other at the bi rth of t he child, claims the Trial Court e rre d in f

ailing to e ng ag e in a c omparative fitness test in awar ding the child to a per son who by DN A t e sti ng wa s sh ow n to be thebio log ic a l f a the r. We a ff

irm.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Juv e nileCo ur t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.
Cha rl e s D . B uc kh olt s, Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or app e llant.
J ennife r E. Raby , Rockwood, Tenne ssee, a t t o r n e y ad litem.
Paul G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l an d Re p o rte r , a n d Ju a n G

. V il la s e n o r , A s s is tan t A tt o rney Ge ne ra l, N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

OP IN ION This action orig inated whe n the State Depa rtmen t o f C h i ldren’s Services filed a Petition for Temporary

Custodyof D.J.M.M., J r., alleg ing that he was a d ep endent and neg lected
c hil d. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e g ua rd ia n a d lite m file d a Comp la int to E sta bli sh Pare nta g e , n a min g DC S, the Mother, C.M., and R.D.M., along with J .A. The Complaint alleg ed that the mother , C.M., had acknow ledg ed that J.A. was actua lly the biologic al father of the child, and the Com plaint asks for g enetic te sting. R.D.M. objec ted to the testing , asserting that he was the le g al father of the child due to his marriag e t o t h e m o ther. Ge netic testing was pe rformed on J .A., showing him to be the biologica l father

of the c hild, and on October 14, 2 0 0 5 , an Or der of Parenta g e wa s entere d by the-2-

Trial Judge, f

inding that J .A. was the fathe r of the child, and c ustody of the c hild was g iven to L .A., the pa ter na l g rand mothe r. C.M . w a s g ive n v isi tatio n rig hts , a ndJ.A. wa s o rd e re d to pay c hil d support. R.D.M. filed Notice of Appea l.
Th e iss ue on app e a l is wh e the r the Tria l Co urt sh ou ld h a ve e mpl oy e d th e be st interests ana ly sis in finding J.A. to be the father , since ther e we re c ompeting p re s u m p t i o ns of p a t e r n i t y? Ap pe llant a sse rt s th a t bo th h e a ndJ.A. had rebu tt ablepr e su mpt ion s o f p a te rn ity pu rs ua nt to Te nn . Code An n. §3 6- 2- 30 4( a ), sin c e he wa s mar ri e d to the c hil d’ s moth e r at thetim e the child was born, and since J .A. had the positive D NA test. He a rg ues that pursua nt to Cihlar v. Cra wfo rd , 39 S.W .3d 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), when two men havecompeting presumptions of paternity , the court must eng ag e in a be st interests analy sis to determine who is the leg al father. Appellant ar g ues that the holding in Cihlar was followe d by this Court’s decision in In re TKY , 2005 Tenn. App. L

EXI S 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), which he a sserts is fac tually on point in thi s case , but
a d mi tt e d in h is b r ie f th a t p e r mi s s io n to ap p e a l h a d b e e n g r a n te d in TKY, and that th e Sup re me Court’s decision would likely control the outcome of this case

. The gua rdian’s brief point s out that the S upreme Court did issue a dec ision in TKY on Aug ust 28, 2006, where in this Court was rever sed. The Supreme Court found that the biolog ical fathe r ( a s sh ow n b y

DN A t e sti ng ) s ho uldbe a dju dg e d th e le g a l f a the r, a ndtha

t it wa s c on sti tut ion a lly impermissible to eng ag e in a ba lancing test which had the r esult of stripping a biologica l pare nt of his rights. In re TKY

, 2006 WL 2467060 (Tenn. Aug

. 28, 2006). T K Y is f actua lly on point with the prese nt case , as it involved a mar ried woma n who had an aff air, a nd the child who wa s born during her ma rriag e wa s found to be the child of her paramour pursuant to DNA testing. B oth men soug ht to be decla

red the leg al fathe r of the child, and this Court found that they h ad co m p et i ng pr e su mpt ion s o f p a te rn ity un de r T e nn . Co de An n. §3 6- 2- 30 4( a ), a nd eng a g e d inthebe st i nte re sts analy sis set forth in Cihlar

. T h e S u p re m e C o u rtre v er s ed t h atj u d gm en t , s t at i n g:

Once the biologic al fath e r h a s e s ta blished his paternity , his constituti onally -protec ted fundame ntal rig ht to parent his child vests and he is the leg al father. That rig ht may only be stripped pursuant to the statutory pare ntal termination proce dures - it may not be forfeited in a

balanc ing te st or t o another man who may appea r to be a more idea l fathe r.
Id. at 8.
I n thi s c a se J.A. ha s be e n sh ow n to b e thebio log ic a l f a the r o f the c hil d, a ndhis ri g hts cannot be forf

eited to t he appellant by using the balanc ing test. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the Judgment of theTria l Co urt a ndre ma nd , w iththec os t of theapp e a l a sse sse d to R.D .M

.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.