In State ex rel. Roy Allen S. v. Stone, 196 W. Va. 624, 474 S.E.2d 554 (1996), the Court addressed the legal requirements for standing of a putative biological father to raise the issue of paternity of a child born to a married woman, not his wife. In examining the general paternity issues, this Court reiterated that the "preeminent factor in deciding whether to grant or deny blood testing is the child's best interests." Id. at 638, 474 S.E.2d at 568. The Roy Allen Court also observed that paternity cases "require the exercise of sensitivity and discretion in the analysis of a range of factors that can vary widely from case to case in terms of their applicability and importance." Id. at 639, 474 S.E.2d at 569. The Court held that a putative biological father might in certain circumstances be permitted to prove his biological paternity by blood tests, and to seek to rebut the legal presumption of paternity that arises in a child's mother's husband. However, the Court emphasized that "the preeminent factor in deciding whether to grant or deny blood testing is the child's best interests." Id., 196 W. Va. at 638, 474 S.E.2d at 568. The Court recognized that in paternity cases involving conflicting bases or presumptions for paternity, a court's decisions "require the exercise of sensitivity and discretion in the analysis of a range of factors that can vary widely from case to case in terms of their applicability and importance." Id. 196 W. Va. at 639, 474 S.E.2d at 569. The Court had the opportunity to extensively address the legal requirements for standing of a putative biological father to raise the issue of paternity of a child born to a married woman, not his wife. In enumerating the such standards, the Court explained as follows in syllabus point six of Roy Allen S.: A putative biological father must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following factors before he will have standing to raise the issue of paternity of a child born to a married woman who is not his wife: (1) that he has developed a parent-child relationship 6 with the child in question, and (2) that the child will not be harmed by allowing the paternity action to proceed. In syllabus point three of Roy Allen S., this Court explained its reasoning for application of those two prerequisites to standing: In the absence of special circumstances which would justify an exception, a petition by a putative biological father seeking to establish his paternity over a child who was born while the mother was married to another man may not proceed unless the putative father clearly and convincingly proves as a threshold matter that he has established a substantial paternal relationship with the child. The putative father's showing need not be made, however, if no person or party (named or intervening and including the guardian ad litem) contests the petition. 196 W. Va. at 626, 474 S.E.2d at 556. Syllabus point seven of Roy Allen S. further provides: When a putative biological father raises a paternity claim, the child must be joined and a guardian ad litem appointed. The circuit court should conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the requisite preconditions are present. In addition, the preeminent factor in deciding whether to grant or deny blood testing is the child's best interests. The analysis of each factual situation is necessarily a discretionary decision for the circuit court, and the finding by the circuit court will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Id.