interests. A court must reach this conclusion independently based on the facts in the record.” Id. at 339. Similarly in McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash'.2d 299, 738 P.2d 254 (1987), the Supreme Court of Washington addressing competing presumptions of paternity held that: “the mere filing of a paternity action does not automatically imply that the action is in the child’s best interest. A court must reach this conclusion independently based on the facts in the record and the recommendations of the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the child.” Id. at 262. There, the 988, 993 (1995) (recognizing that the best interest of the child is a paramount consideration in determining whether to order blood tests); Ban v. Quigley, 168 Ariz. 196, 812 P.2d 1014, 1017 (App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, although not specifically
holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child holding that the trial court must specifically consider whether it would be in the best interest of the child for the case to proceed before a putative father may be permitted to seek blood tests in an attempt to rebut the presumption of paternity 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 trial court erred by not considering whether ordering blood tests to disestablish paternity was in the best interest of the child