In this case, the magistrate did not make express findings on the best interests of the child when he adjudicated Biological Father as the child's legal father. The court of appeals upheld the magistrate's adjudication, even absent such findings See In re S.R.H., 981 P.2d 199 (Colo.App. 1998). Since we conclude that the court must address the best interests of the child, we reverse the court of appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

After the presumption was adopted, the Colorado Court of Appeals, citing R. McG. v. J.W., construed its parentage act to give a putative father standing to compel a mother and child to submit to blood or genetic testing. See In re S.R.H., 981 P.2d 199, 202 (Colo.Ct.App. 1998), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 366 (Colo. 2000). Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that a biological father might have "a constitutionally protected interest in his relationship with a child whose mother is married to, and cohabiting with, another man at the time of the child's conception and birth.

Two other states, which like Minnesota have added a genetic presumption to their parentage acts, have come to conflicting conclusions on whether a putative father has standing to compel a test when there is already a presumed father. Compare B.H. v. K.D., 506 N.W.2d 368, 374-75 (N.D. 1993) (holding that man, in absence of genetic test, lacks standing to assert paternity when marital presumption of paternity already exists), with In re S.R.H., 981 P.2d 199, 202 (Colo.Ct.App. 1998) (holding putative father has standing to assert paternity without first having obtained genetic testing, even when marital presumption of paternity already exists), cert. granted (Colo. Aug. 2, 1999).