and the circuit court denied them. On appeal to this Court, the mother argued that because she and the husband were parties to the paternity action, the court erred in denying her motions. In an unreported opinion, we held that even if the rulings were in error, the error was harmless because biological paternity was not in dispute. The Court of Appeals did not address that issue on certiorari. Id. at 521-22, 639 A.2d 1076. 15 . We note also that Tyrone’s motion for blood or genetic testing was made by a "party to the proceedings,” within the meaning of F.L. § 5- 1029(b), in that there has been but one proceeding in this case: a paternity action. 16 . Likewise, such a decision also includes consideration of the best interest of the child. Sider v. Sider, 334 Md. at 527, 639 A.2d 1076 (<HOLDING>). 17 . We note that a decision by a circuit
holding court properly applied best interest of child standard when determining whether placement goal should be changed holding that  best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity