relationship between putative father and child, statute depriving putative father of standing to challenge paternity did not violate due process); Markert v. Behm, 394 N.W.2d 239, 243-44 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (statute denying putative fathers standing to bring paternity action does not violate due process or equal protection rights under the United States Constitution); Merkel v. Doe, 63 Ohio Misc.2d 490, 635 N.E.2d 70, 72 (Ohio Ct.Com.Pl.1993) (finding paternity statute which granted putative fathers standing to assert paternity to a child born during a marriage was unconstitutional due process infringement on fundamental interest of child’s family and statute was not sufficiently narrowly tailored for due process purposes); Amrhein v. Cozad, 714 A.2d 409, 411 (Pa.Super.Ct.1998) (<HOLDING>); Evans v. Steelman, 970 S.W.2d 431, 434-35
holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding blood test taken for independent medical purpose is not same as blood test taken pursuant to section 3755a recognizing presumption 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 presumption of paternity that applies to intact family prevented an order by the court for a blood test or the use of privately obtained blood test to rebut the presumption of legitimacy