when there has been neither agreement nor adjudication of the fact. In that situation, the question is one of historical fact, which, until decided, cannot have anything to do with the child’s best interest. A different situation is presented, however, after paternity has been determined, whether by agreement or adjudication. Then, the best interest of the child necessarily is involved. The historical fact of parentage no longer stands alone; now it is intertwined with the interests of the child and no longer is capable of separation. Once paternity is established, § 5-1029 has no further role to play in that arena. The amendment to § 5-1038 does not change that, in my view, without, as there is not in this case, an amendment making it so. Contrary to the majorit , 1083 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99,
holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding that the best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity holding court properly applied best interest of child standard when determining whether placement goal should be changed