### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON A PRIL22, 201 0 S es sio n IN TH E MATTE R OF: KEMPTO N, L.D.
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e J u v en il e C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o . K 4 7 3 G eo rg e E . B lan ce tt, M a g ist ra te

N o. W 2009- 00906- C O A
- R 3- JV - F i l ed M ay 7, 2010

W h il e c o h ab it ati n g w ith A p p ell an t, M o ther g av e b ir th to a c h il d , an d sh o rt ly the rea ft er, A ppel l ant acknow l edged pat er ni t y. Sever al year s l at er , a D N A t es tal l egedl y i ndi cat ed t hat A pp el l ant w as not t he ch i l d’s bi ologi cal father. A ft er r ecei ving t he D N A t estres u lt s, A ppel l antw ai t ed m or e t han t w o year s t o f i l e a pet i t i on t o di s es t abl i s h pat er ni t y, w hi ch t he juv en il e cour tdeni ed. B eca us e A ppel l antfai l ed t o f i l e hi s pet i t i on for R ul e 60. 02 r el i ef

“ w ith in a re a s o n a b le tim e ,” w e a ffir m th e d e c is io n o f t h e ju v e n ile c o u rt
.

T enn. R . A pp. P . 3; A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he Juveni l e C ourt A f f i rm ed
A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J

. , j oi ned.
V a n e ss a C ro ss , M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llan t, K e m p to n L a m o n te D a n iels
R o b e rt E . C o o p e r, Jr., A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d R e p o rte r, M ich a e l E

. M o o re , S o licito r G e n e ra l, A m yT . M c C o n n e ll , A s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, N a s h v il le , T e n n e s s e e , f o rth e a p p e llee , S tate o f T e n n e s s e e , ex r el

S h errie M o rne et A lexa n d er.-2- OP I NI ON
I. F ACTS & P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY Sher r i e M or neetA l exande r( “M ot her ”) gave bi r t h t o a chi l d, K

. L

. D

. , on J une 27, 1 9 9 8 , whi l e s h e was c o h a b i t a t i n g wi t h Kemp t o n La mon t e Dan i e l s ( “ App e l l a n t ” )

. T he T ennes s ee D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces fi l ed a “ Pet i t i on t o E s t abl i s h Par ent age” on N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 9 8

. T h e f o llo w in g d a y , th e p a rt ie s e x e c u te d a “ C o n s e n t O rd e r,” acknow l edgi ng A ppel l ant ’ s pat er ni t yof t he chi l d. B as ed on t he par t i es ’ admi s s i ons , t he tr i al c o u rt d e c re e d th e c h ild to b e A p p e llan t’s n a tu ra l ch ild , an d it o rd e re d A p p e llan t to p a yc h ild su p p o rt“a s ab le m o n thly [.]”
O n J anuary10, 2007, t he St at e o f T ennes s ee f i l ed a “ Pet i t i on t o M odi fyt o Set Suppor t , ” s eeki ng t o m odi fyt he C ons entO r der“t o i ncl ude s pec ifi c s uppor ti n acc or dance w i t h t he Tennes s ee Chi l d Suppor t G ui del i nes ” t o be pai d t hr ough i ncome as s i gnm ent

. A ct i ng p ro se , A p p e llan t f

iled a “ P e tit io n to D ise sta b lish P a ter n ity ” o n Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . P u rsu a n t to T ennes s ee Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60. 02( 4) and ( 5) , A ppell ant pet i t i oned t o s etas i de the C ons entO r derand t o t er m i nat e hi s chi l d s uppor t obl i gat i on, oral t ernat i vel y , s oughtfur t her D N A t es t i ng. I n s uppor t of hi s pet i t i on, A ppel l ant al l eged t hat he di d notcont es tt he Pet i t i on t o E s t a b l i s h Pa r e n t a g e b e c a u s e M o t h e r t o l d h i m h e was t h e c h i l d ’ s f a t h e r . Howev e r , aft er a st at em ent byM other ’s fri end caused him t o q uest i on his paternity , he h ad a D N A t est p erf o rm ed , w h ich h e c lai m s “sh o w ed co n clus ively ” tha t he is n o t th e c h il d ’s fa ther. A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on i ndi cat es t hata copyof t he D N A t es tr es ul t s w as att ac h ed t her et o; how ever , no copyi s at t ache d, and t he r es ul t s do notappea rel s ew her e i n t he r ecor d.
Fo l l o wi n g a M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 8 h e a r i n g , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r tr e f e r e e ma d e t h e f

o l l o wi ng fi nd i ng s: [A ppel l ant ] t es t i fi ed t hathe pr ovi ded s uppor tfort he mi norchi l d s i nce bi r t h. H e w a s inf

o rm e d th a t th e m in o r ch ild m ig h t n o t b e h is w h e n th e m in o r c h ild w as appr oxi m at el yfi ve y ear s ol d. A ft er q u esti o n i ng, t he mot hers t at ed the c h ild w a s h is. F a th e r te s tifie d th a t h e h a s n o t v isited w ith th e c h ild in appro x i m at el yone y ear . H e s t opped s uppor t i ng t he chi l d appr oxi m at el y11 m ont hs ago. [M ot her ] t es t i fi ed t hat[A ppel l ant ] ques t i oned the par ent age of t he chi l d s i nce t h e c h i l d wa s t wo we e k s o l d

. T h a t s h e a l wa y s t o l d h i m h e c o u l d h a v e a DNAT he “ Fi nd i ngs an d R e c ommen da t i on s ” ci t e th e year as “2 00 6. ” How e ver , thi s is ap par e nt l y a 1 ty po gra ph ic ale rr or

b y the c ourto r mis st at ement b y Mo th er , a s th e al le g ed

DNAte st r es ul ts w er e date d April 1, 2005

. Retroa ctiv e ch ild su pport was also s et at $25. 00 per month, app arently in addition

to the $ 214. 00 2 amount

. -3- t es t

. T hats om et i m e i n 200[5] s he w as cont act ed bys om eone w ho t ol d hers he 1 h a d to s u b m it th e c h ild f o r D N A te s tin g . . . .

. . . . A ccor di ng t o [M ot her ] , [A ppel l ant ] ques t i oned par ent age of [t he chi l d] s i nce t he chi l d w as t w o w eeks ol d. D es pi t e bei ng i nfor m ed of hi s r i ghtt o t es t i ng by t hi s C our t , M r . D ani el s ent er ed i nt o a cons ent or der es t abl i s hi ng t he par ent age o f K e m pton. M r. D aniel s t est i fi ed thathe h as quest i on ed [the chil d’s] par ent age s i nce [ t he chi l d] w as fi ve. D es pi t e hi s doubt s [A p p ell ant ] di d not se e k r e li e f

u n til Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e v e ra c ityo f th e f ili n g is q u e stio n e d a s it co incid es w ith the M o ther’s req u est t o o b tai n c h ild s u p p o rtfil ed o n Jan u ary 10, 2007.
T he r efe r ee r ecomm ended that A ppel l ant ’ s Pet i t i on t o D i s es t abl i s h Pat erni t y be deni ed, and t hatt he C ons ent O r der be m odi fi ed t o s et A ppel l ant ’ s chi l d s uppor t obl i gat i on at $214. 00 per m ont h t o be pai d t hr ough i ncome as s i gnm ent

. T he r efe r ee’ s “Fi ndings a nd 2 R ecomm endat i ons ” w er e conf i r m ed by the j uveni l e courtj udge. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on February24, 2009, t he j uveni l e courts peci al j udge i s s ued an “ O r der , ” on M ar ch 17, 2009, di s m i s s i ng A ppel l ant ’ s Pet i t i on t o R ehea r , and “r econf i r m [i ng] ” the r efe r ee’ s M ay28, 2008 rul i ng. O n A pr i l 9, 2009, A ppel l antfi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l , appea l i ng fr om t he M ar ch 17, 2 0 0 9 O rd e r. II. I SSUES P RESENT ED Ap p e l l a n tp r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o wi n g i s s u e s f

o rr e v i e w: 1

. W h e th e r the ju v en il e c o u rtref ere e e rred in ru li n g that o n lyp roo f re g ard ing co u rt a p p r o v e d DNA t e s tr e p o r t s a r e a l l o we d i n t o e v i d e n c e , n o tp r o o f o f p r i v a t e DNA t es t i ng r epor t s ; and
2. W het her on r ehea r i ng, t he courterr ed i n s us t ai ni ng t he j uveni l e courtr efe r ee’ s rul i ng t hatw ai verhad occ ur r ed t o b arA ppel l antfr om pr ocee di ng t o r e- open the i s s ue ofTenne ss ee R ul e of Juv en il e P ro ce dure 1 (b ) pr ovid es th at th e Tenne ss ee R

ul es o f C iv ilP ro ce dure 3 g ov ern p aternity

case s. -4- pat erni t yand nei t herT enn. R

. C i v. P. 60. 02 ( 4) or( 5) w as appl ic abl e t o pr ovi de ju d ic ia l r e lie f

. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e ju v e n ile c o u rt.

III . D I SC US SI ON O n app e a l , App e l l a n tc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e j u v e n i l e c o u r te r r e d i n “ r e c o n f i r m[ i n g ] ” t he re f e re e ’s d e n ial o f R u le 6 0 .0 2 re lief. T e n n e ss e e R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 6 0 .0 2 p ro v id e s in 3 p a rt:
O n m ot i on and upon s uch t er m s as ar e j us t , t he courtm ayr el i eve a par t yort he par t y ’ s l egal r epr es ent at i ve fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , or der or pr ocee di ng fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons : . . . ( 4) t he jud g m en t h as been s at i s fi ed, r el eas ed or di s cha r g e d , o r a p r i o r j u d g me n t u p o n whi c h i t i s b a s e d h a s b e e n r e v e r s ed or ot herw i s e vac at ed, ori ti s no l ongerequi t abl e thata j udgm ents houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; o r (5 ) anyot herr eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef f r om t he o p e r a t i o n o f

t h e j u d g me n t

. Th e mo t i o n s h a l l b e ma d e wi t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i me

. . . . R ul e 60. 02 r el i ef i s “an e xcept i onal r emedy

. ” N ails v . A etna Ins . Co. , 834 S. W

. 2d 289, 294 ( T enn. 1992)

. I t s funct i on i s “t o s t r i ke a pr operbal ance betw een the compet i ng pr i nci pl es of fi nal i t yand j us t i ce. ” Jerkins v. McK inney , 5 3 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 5 , 2 8 0 (T en n . 1 9 7 6 ). I toper at es as “an e s cape val ve fr om pos s i bl e i nequit y that m ightot herw i s e ar i s e fr om t he u n re le n tin g im p o s itio n o f th e p ri n c ip le o f

f in a lity im b e d d e d in o u r p ro c e d u ra l r u le s .” T homps on v. Fir em an’s F und Ins. Co. , 79 8 S. W

. 2d 23 5, 23 8 (T enn . 19 90 ). B ut, “[b]ecause o f t h e ‘ p r i n c i p l e o f

f i n a l i t y , ’ t h e ‘ e s c a p e v a l v e ’ s h o u l d n o tb e e a s i l yo p ened. ” B anks v. D em ent Constr. Co. , 817 S. W

. 2d 16, 18 ( T enn. 1991) ( quot i ng Toney v. Muel l erC o. , 810 S. W

. 2d 145, 146 ( T enn. 1991) )

. T he part ys eeki ng t o s etas i de a j udgm entunderR ul e 60. 02 bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng ent i t l ement t o reli ef, “a nd t her e mustbe pr oof of the bas i s on w hi ch re l i ef i s s ought

. ” B r um low v. B r um low , 729 S. W

. 2d 103, 106 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 1986) ( ci t i ng R hea v. Meadow vi ew E lder l y Apartm ent

s , Lt d. , 676 S. W

. 2d 9 4 (T en n . C t

. A pp. 1 9 8 4 )).
“The deni al of a m ot i on t o s et as i de a j udgm ent pur s uant t o R ul e [ ]

. . . 60. 02 of t he T ennes s ee Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e i s r evi ew ed on an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” Sm ith-5-

v
. Sh a w, N o. W 2004- 01772- C O A

- R 3- C V , 200 5 W L 1 3 23294, at*2 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. J une 3, 2005) ( ci t i ng H

ow el lv. T

ucker, N o. W 2002- 0222- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2003 W L 22213215, at * 2 (T e n n . C t. A p p . S e p t. 24 , 2 0 0 3 ); B o w e rs v
. G u tte r g u a r d o f T e n n ., In c ., N o. M 2002- 02877- C O A

- R 3-C V , 2 0 0 3 W L 22994302, at*2 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. D ec. 17, 2003) )

. “The abus e of di s cr et i o n st andar d r equi r es us t o cons i der : ( 1) w hethert he dec i s i on has a s uffi ci ent evi dent i aryfoundat i on; ( 2) w hethert he tr i al cour t corr ect l y i dent i fi ed and pr oper l yappl i ed t he appr opr i at e l egal pr i nci pl es; and ( 3) w hethert he dec i s i on i s w i t hi n t he r ange of acc ept abl e al t er nat i ves . ” B ronson v. U m ph ri es, 138 S. W

. 3d 844, 851 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng St at e ex r el

. V

aughn v. Kaatr ude, 21 S. W

. 3d 244, 248 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2000) )

. U nder th e a b u se o f

d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , w e u p h o ld th e trial c o u rt’s r u li n g “ ‘so lo n g a s re a so n a b le mi n d s c a n d i s a g r e e a s t o t h e p r o p r i e t yo f th e d e c i s i o n ma d e . ’ ” E ldr i dge v. E ldr i dge, 42 S. W

. 3d 82, 85 ( T enn. 2001) ( quot i ng S ta te v . Sc o tt, 3 3 S .W .3 d 7 4 6 , 7 5 2 (T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ); S ta te v. G i l l i l and, 22 S. W

. 3d 266, 273 ( T enn. 2000) )

. W e do not s i m pl y s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm ent f o r th a t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt

. I

d. ( ci t i ng M

y in t v . A lls ta te In s . C o ., 970 S. W

. 2d 920, 927 ( T enn. 1998) )

. “W hethera R ul e 60. 02[] m o ti o n i s fi l ed w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e i s a ques t i on of fac tforthe tr i al cour t , an d t hi s C our tw i l l r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on undert he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” W al kerv. N is s an N . A . , I nc. , No. M 2 0 0 9

- 0 0 2 73- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2009 W L 2589089, at*2 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. A ug. 21, 2009) ( ci t i ng Ro g e rs v
. Es t at e of R u ss e ll , 5 0 S .W .3 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 5 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ))

.
A s ground s for r e-open i ng his paternityorder, A pp el l ant ci t es i nd epen den t D N A t est r es ul t s w hi ch he c l ai m s i ndi cat e t hathe i s not t he chi l d’ s father , as w el l as “conc eal m entby [] m ot herr egar di ng t he l i kel i hood t hatanotheri s t he bi ol ogi cal father [. ] ” A ppel l antci t es s ever al cas es w hi ch he c l ai m s s uppor tt he appl i cat i on of R ul e 60. 02’ s extr aor di naryr el i ef.

I n C oppage v. G r een , N o . W 2 0 0 6 -00 7 6 7 -C O A -R 3 -JV , 2 0 0 7 W L 8 4 5 9 0 9 , at *1 (Tenn. C t. A p p . M a r. 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 ), to w h ich A p p e llan t f irst c ites , the m o th e r g a v e b irth to a c h ild in 1990, and i n 1997, t he j uveni l e courtr efe r ee entere d fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons det er m i ni ng t hatC oppage w as t he chi l d’ s father

. H ow ev er, the r es ul t s of an A pr i l 2005 in d e p e n d e n t D N A tes t e x c lu d e d C o p p a g e a s th e c h ild ’s f a th e r, an d th re e m o n th s la ter , in J u ly 2 0 0 5 , C o p p a g e f

ile d a p e titio n to d is e s ta b lis h p a te rn ity. I d. at *2. T he re fer ee found t hatt he c a s e w a rr a n te d R u le 6 0 .0 2 ’s “ e x c e p tio n a l re lie f ” a n d o rd e re d D N A te s tin g . I d. at*3. T he m o ther fil ed a mot i on fora s t ayof t he or der ed D N A t es t i ng, ar gui ng t hatC oppage w as b a rr e d f ro m c h a lle n g in g h is p a te rn ity e s ta b lis h e d e ig h t yea rs p ri o r. I d. a t * 4 . T h e ju v e n ile cour tdi s m i s s ed C oppage’ s pet i t i on t o di s es t abl i s h pat erni t y , butt hi s C our tr ever s ed, fi ndi ng th a t th e trial co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g C o p p a g e ’s R u le 6 0 .0 2 m o tio n f o r c o u rta p p ro v e d D N A te s tin g . I d. at*4, *6. I n s o rul i ng, t hi s C our ts peci fi cal l ynot ed thatC oppage “fi r s ts oughta D N A t es tear l yi n t he pr oces s , w i t hi n a y ear aft er entr y of t he pat erni t yor der and thi s r equest w as deni ed, ” and w e gave “s ubs t ant i al cons i der at i on” t o t he fa ctt hat-6-

C oppage “ w as on act i ve dut yw i t h t he m i l i t ary w hen t he chi l d w as bor n and dur i ng m os tof t he i nt er veni ng y ear s [. ] ” I d. at*6. F u rt her m or e, w e s t at ed that“w e ca nnoti gnor e t he e v id e nce o f t he D N A t est ” w hich w as at t ached t o C op pag e’s peti t i on t o d i sest abli sh p a te rn ity. I

d. at*2, *6.

A ppel l ant al s o r eci t es t he “e qui t abl e pr i nci pl es ” s etfor t h i n W hite v . Arm s tr ong , N o. 0 1 A 0 1 -9 7 1 2 -JV -0 0 7 3 5 , 1 9 9 9 W L 3 3 0 8 5 , at * 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . M .S . Ja n . 2 7 , 1 9 9 9 ) to det er m i ne w hethera R ul e 60. 02 m ot i on forr el i ef f r om a fi nal or der i nvol vi ng pat erni t yhas been f i l ed w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e: ( 1) t he ci r cumst ance s under w hi ch t he ori gi nal pat erni t y or der w as ent er ed, ( 2) the tim ing an d circu m stan ce s o f th e p rev iou slyad jud icated fa ther’s q u e stio n in g th a t h e w a s th e c h ild ’s f a th e r, (3 ) w h e th e r th e p re v io u sly adj udi cat ed fa t herpr es ent ed orat t empt ed t o pr es entt he r es ul t s of gene t i c, D N A , o r b lo o d tes tin g ; an d ( 4 ) th e b u rd e n s im p o se d o n th e p re v io u sly a d j u d i c a t e d f

a t h e r a n d o n t h e c h i l d b y t h e c o n t i n u e d e n f o r c e me nt or by t he r e o p e n i n g o f

t h e j u d g m e n to f

p a t e r n i t y.

I d. ( ci t i ng E

x Part e Je nki ns , N o s. 1 9 6 1 5 2 0 & 1 9 6 1 5 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 W L 3 9 9 8 6 6 , at * 8 (A la. J u ly 17, 1998) )

. A ppel l antar gues t hat beca us e he bel i eved he w as t he chi l d’ s bi ol ogi cal father w hen pat erni t yw as i ni t i al l yes t abl i s hed, and bec aus e he pr es ent ed t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he a lle g e d D N A te s t r e s u lts , th a t p o s t- ju d g m e n t r e lie f

is a p p ro p ri a te

.
I n W h ite , W h ite re sid e d w ith th e m o th e r w h e n th e c h ild a t issu e w a s b o rn , an d W h ite had no r eas on t o bel i eve thathe w as not t he chi l d’ s bi ol ogi cal father

. 1999 W L 33085, at*1. W hen the part i es s epar at ed, W hi t e fi l ed a pe t i t i on t o l egi t i m at e the chi l d, and an or derw as e n te re d d e c la ri n g h im a s th e c h ild ’s b io lo g ic a l f a th e r. I d. S everal y ears l at er, t he c h ild

“ re p e a ted lyto ld M r . W h it e th a t h e h a d tw o f a th e rs,” a n d , ap p a re n tlyw ith o u t d e lay, W h ite o b t a i n e d g e n e tic te s tin g , w h ic h “ c a te g o ri c a lly e x c lu d e d ” W h ite a s th e c h ild ’s f a th e r. I d. “A rm ed w ith this [D N A ] ev iden ce , ” W h it e f il ed a p eti ti o n to term inate h is ch il d su p p o rt o b li g ati o n , b u t th e j u v en il e co u rt d en ied reli ef , stat ing that h e h ad “‘w il li n g lyu n d ert[ak en ]’” t he obl i gat i on and thathe had “‘ perpetr at ed a fr aud upon the C our t ’ ” byobt ai ni ng t he i ni t i al legiti m ati o n o rde r. I

d. at *2

. T h is C o u rtrev erse d , fin d ing that W h it e’s v o lun tary leg iti m a tio n o f

th e c h ild d id n o t b a r h im f ro m p u rsu in g re lief

, an d f u rth e r th a t th e “ irre f

u tab le evi dence t hatM r . W hi t e i s not[t he chi l d’ s ] bi ol ogi cal father ” pr ovi ded s uffi ci entgr ounds f o r r e lie f

. I

d. at*4.-7-

W e ac know l edge thatR ul e 60. 02 r el i ef m ay be avai l abl e for pr evi ous l yadj udi cat ed fa thers w h o lat er w ish t o co n testp atern ity , as re co g n ized in the ab o v e-c it ed ca ses. H o w ev er, w e di s t i ngui s h t hos e ca s es fr om t he i ns t antcas e. I n bot h Cop page and W

h ite , R ul e 60. 02 r el i ef w as notpr ecl uded des pi t e a del aybetw een the es t abl i s hm entof pat erni t yand the adj udi cat ed fa t her s ’ pet i t i ons t o di s es t abl i s h pat erni t yort o t er m i nat e s uppor t

. H er e, how ever , a s i gni fi cantper i od of t i m e pas s ed not o n l ybetw een the C ons entO r der ac k n o w ledg ing A p p ell an t’ s p atern ityan d h is Pe titi o n to D isestablish P atern ity , b u t m o re i m por t ant l y , betw een hi s ques t i oni ng pat erni t yand al l eged di s cover yof non- pat erni t yand hi s di s es t abl i s hm entpet i t i on. A tt he hea r i ng, M ot hert es t i fi ed thatA ppel l anthad ques t i oned h is p a ter n itysin c e th e c h ild w a s tw o w e e k s o ld , w h ile A p p e llan t se t th e d a te a t ap p ro x im a tely 2003, w hen t he chi l d w as fi ve y ear s ol d. I n hi s “St at ement o f t he Evi dence , ” A ppel l ant conce des t hat“ar ound 2004 or2005 [] he hear d s t at ement s . . . w hi ch l ed hi m t o bel i eve that he m ay no t be t he bi ol og i c a l fa t he r [, ] ” a nd t ha t t he r e s ul t s of a n A pr i l 1, 20 05 D N A t est i ndi cat ed t hathe w as notthe ch i l d’ s father

. T hus , byhi s ow n admi s s i on, A ppel l ant ques t i oned hi s pat er ni t yby2003, and al l egedl y l earned t hathe w as nott he chi l d’ s fatherby A pr i l 2005. H ow ever , A ppel l antt ook no act i on t o di s es t abl i s h par ent age f orm or e than four y ear s aft erques t i oni ng pat erni t y and t w o y ear s aft err ece i ptof t he D N A t es tr es ul t s , unt i l he f iled h is J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 P e tit io n to D ise sta b lish P a ter n ity

. M o re o v e r, A p p e llan t ap p a re n tly cont i nued t o s uppor tt he chi l d, des pi t e hi s al l eged know l edge thatt he chi l d w as nothi s ow n, unt i l t he t i m e hi s di s es t abl i s hm ent pet i t i on w as fi l ed. A ppel l ant ’ s onl yexpl anat i on fordel ay i s t hat h e “ b e l i e v e d t h e i s s u e o f p a r e n t a g e h a d b e e n a n d c o u l d b e s o l e l y r e s o l ved byt he par t i es w i t houtcour ti nt er vent i on. ” Thi s as s er t i on, t hough, i s under cutbyt he fa ctt hat A ppel l ant w as a par t y t o cour tpr ocee di ngs t o estab l ish hi s pat erni t y . “R ul e 60. 02 does not

. . . per m i ta l i t i gantt o s l um ber on [hi s ] cl ai m s and t hen bel at edl yat t empt t o r el i t i gat e i s s ues l ong s i nce l ai d t o r es t

. ” Tho mp s o n v . Fi r e m e n’s Fun d I ns . C o. , 798 S. W

. 2d 235, 238 (T e n n . 1 9 9 0 ). U n d e r th e f a c ts o f th is c a se , w e f

in d th a t A p p e llan t’s p e tit io n se e k in g R u le 60. 02 r el i ef w as notfi l ed w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, and t her efor e, t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d not abuse it s d is cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng s uch. H avi ng s o found, w e nee d notaddr es s t he i nt r oduct i on of D N A t es tr es ul t s i nt o evi dence

.
I V. C ONC L US I ON

F o r th e a f

o re m e n tio n e d re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f th e ju v e n ile c o u rt. C o sts of t hi s appea l ar e t axed t o A ppel l ant , K empt on L amont e D ani el s , for w hi ch exe cut i on m ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

_________________________________ A LA N E. H I G H ER S, P. J

. , W

. S.