Courts are not at liberty to disregard the clear mandates of a statute. See Ken Smith Auto Parts v. Thomas, No. E2018-00928-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 192442, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019) (quoting Browning v. Browning, No. E2017-02354-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 4057245, at *3 n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018)). We thus find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Tyson failed to establish paternity of Lilah and, therefore, is not her legal father.
Courts are not at liberty to disregard the clear mandates of a statute. See Ken Smith Auto Parts v. Thomas, No. E2018-00928-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 192442, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019) (quoting Browning v. Browning, No. E2017-02354-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 4057245, at *3 n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018)). We thus find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Tyson failed to establish paternity of Lilah and, therefore, is not her legal father.
According to Plaintiff, if the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion, which we conclude it did, the Circuit Court nevertheless lacked discretion to do anything other than grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff. In Browning v. Browning, No. E2017-02354-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 4057245 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018), no appl. perm. appeal filed, a case cited by Plaintiff, this Court discussed the implications of a defendant's failure to appear upon his or her appeal from general sessions court to the circuit court. We stated, in part: