one of the attorneys from a legal aid organization representing her in the divorce case against the former husband, that appellant — not her former husband — was the father. The only time the former husband indicated he was appellee’s father was when he would be with appellee and the other child born during the marriage (who he acknowledges is his son) and he would make the statement to strangers that he was appellee’s father — in an effort not to embarrass appellee. ¶ 13 Obviously, the trial court was in the best position to interpret the demeanor of the individuals testifying and it is equally obvious by his decision, he credited the testimony that was in favor of a finding the former husband did not rear appellee for a two year period. See In Re Davis’ Estate, supra, 36 P.2d at 473 (<HOLDING>). This Court has also fairly recently
recognizing that trial judge has the benefit of observing the ap pearance manner and conduct of the witnesses and their apparent interest or lack thereof in the outcome of the trial recognizing that lowe requires the trial court to preclude the remaining parties from referring to or mentioning the potential interest of the optedout insurer in the outcome of the trial holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony