Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“shall” in subsection (b) of F.L. § 5-1029 is obligatory, not permissive. Indeed, the word “shall” is used throughout F.L. § 5-1029 in its mandatory sense, with the word “may” being used when permissive action is implied, in explicit contrast to the word “shall.” Moreover, as we have explained, the historical context of the enactment of what is now F.L. § 5-1029 indicates that with respect to the alleged father in a paternity action, the testing afforded by that section upon motion has been referred to and treated as mandatory. To be sure, the Court of Appeals in child custody cases and in cases brought under the Estates and Trusts Article has held that it is within the discretion of the court to permit blood or genetic testing. See Monroe v. Monroe, 329 Md. 758, 621 A.2d 898 (1993); Turner v. Whisted, supra, 327 Md. 106, 607
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted
B. holding that the trial court erred by not considering whether ordering blood tests to disestablish paternity was in the best interest of the child
C. 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
D. holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity
E. holding that in domestic law custody case blood tests to determine paternity of child born out of wedlock may only be ordered upon a showing of good cause under the best interest of the child standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.