[¶ 1.] In Department of Social Services (DSS) ex rel. Wright v. Byer, 2004 SD 41, 678 N.W.2d 586 (Byer I), we declared the sixty day statute of limitations in SDCL 25-8-59 to be unconstitutional. Thereafter, DSS sought a rehearing, asserting that the decision in Byer I would result in a loss or reduction of substantial federal funds for child support enforcement because the portion of the statute declared unconstitutional was part of a federal mandate. DSS asks that we remand this case so that it can proceed against both the presumed father and the putative father. DSS believes that if we hold in abeyance *706our decision on the constitutionality of the statute, a judgment of support against the presumed father will make the issue moot. DSS also seeks to proceed with the blood test of the putative father so that if it does not succeed in its case against the presumed father, it can proceed against the putative father and if the case returns to this Court, we will have a complete record before deciding on the constitutionality of the statute. We agree, and accordingly remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Background
[¶ 2.] We briefly restate the facts from Byer I. Toward the end of their marriage, Julienne C. Wright and Steven Stein became estranged, and Wright moved out of the home. From August to October 1998, she lived with defendant, Bret J. Byer. On February 4, 1999, Wright and Stein divorced. The divorce decree incorporated their stipulation, which provided for joint legal and physical custody of their two sons. The decree also ordered that because custody was to be shared equally neither party would pay any child support. In addition, the stipulation provided: “considering [Wright] is currently pregnant, the parties agree that a paternity test will be performed after the child is born. If [Stein] is determined [to be] the biological father of the child, the visitation schedule for the minor child will be the same schedule as for the other children, as set forth in this provision....” A girl, K.S., was born on May 2, 1999. Stein was listed as the father on her birth certificate, and she was given Stein’s name. Neither Wright nor Stein brought an action to determine paternity within sixty days of the child’s birth.
[¶ 3.] Wright received public assistance for K.S. from the State of South Dakota. Consequently, almost three years later, on March 9, 2002, a paternity action was commenced by DSS, seeking to have defendant, Bret J. Byer, declared KS.’s father and requesting an order for child support. In her affidavit, Wright alleged that while she was still married to Stein, she was residing with Byer when K.S. was conceived. She asserted that the issue of Steven Stein’s paternity had been disputed since the divorce, but recent paternity testing had excluded him as the biological father of K.S. Relying on In re Support Obligation of Do Rego, 2001 SD 1, 620 N.W.2d 770, the circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the action because it was brought after the sixty day limitations period expired.
[¶ 4.] Under his divorce decree, Stein is not presently obligated to pay child support for K.S. From the sparse record, we cannot determine if any effort has been made to modify Stein’s decree to provide for the support of his presumed daughter, K.S. There is only the stipulation, with its tentative recognition that he may not be KS.’s father.
Analysis and Decision
[¶ 5.] On rehearing, we examine this case under the same standard of review we used in Byer I. At issue here are two statutes. The first is SDCL 25-8-57, providing that “[a]ny child born in wedlock, or born within ten months after dissolution of the marriage, is presumed legitimate to that marriage even if the marriage is subsequently declared to be null and void, or subsequently dissolved by divorce.” The rebuttable presumption in § 25-8-57 “can only be disputed by the husband or wife, or a descendant of one or both of them.” Id. The second statute is SDCL 25-8-59:
Any action contesting a rebuttable presumption of paternity as established by §§ 25-8-50 to 25-8-58, inclusive, shall be commenced in circuit court either sixty days after the creation of the presumption of paternity or the date of any *707administrative or judicial proceedings relating to the child including proceedings to establish a support obligation in accordance with § 25-8-52, whichever occurs earlier, except in cases where there are allegations of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. In cases involving allegations of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, any action contesting a rebuttable presumption of paternity shall be commenced within three years after the creation of any presumption. The burden of proof shall be upon the moving party and the payment of child support, or any other legal responsibilities of the parties, may not be suspended during the pendency of the proceedings, except upon a showing of good cause by the moving party.
Id. Byer, the putative father, successfully raised the presumption of legitimacy under § 25-8-57 and the sixty day limitations period in § 25-8-59. In so doing, he avoided an obligation to take a blood test and a possible consequent obligation to support K.S. In a recent paternity test, the former husband, Stein, was shown not to be the father of K.S. He is not required to pay support for the child under the stipulated divorce agreement.
[¶ 6.] DSS, on behalf of Julienne C. Wright, the attorney and guardian ad li-tem for K.S., and Byer all maintain that the sixty day limitations period in SDCL 25-8-59 is constitutional. Nonetheless, from the sparse record, we cannot determine whether K.S. will receive support from either the presumed father, Stein, or the putative father, Byer. All that can be garnered from the record is that DSS provided K.S. and her mother public assistance, that the presumed father, Stein, was not involved in these proceedings, that Stein and Wright’s divorce decree provides that Stein is not obligated to pay child support, that Stein has been ruled out as HS.’s biological father, and that Byer has not been required to take a paternity test. Such minimal information serves us poorly when the ultimate inquiry concerns the well-being and best interests of a child.
[¶ 7.] To avoid a ruling on the constitutionality of SDCL 25-8-59, DSS asks that we remand to the circuit court so that it can proceed against both the presumed father and the putative father. DSS believes that if we hold in abeyance our decision on the constitutionality of the statute, it can obtain a judgment of support against the presumed father and the constitutionality of the statute would become moot. DSS also seeks to proceed with the blood test of the putative father so that if it does not succeed in its case against the presumed father, it can proceed against the putative father, and if the case returns to this Court, we will have a complete record before deciding on the constitutionality of the statute. On remand, vital fact questions that this Court cannot answer at this point will be addressed by the circuit court.
[¶ 8J Consequently, we remand this matter so that DSS can proceed in accordance with this opinion. See generally Davis v. Davis, 1999 SD 116, ¶ 8, 598 N.W.2d 921, 922; Dixon v. Dixon, 423 N.W.2d 507, 509-10 (S.D.1988); Putnam Ranches, Inc. v. O’Neill Prod. Credit Assoc., 271 N.W.2d 856, 858 (1978) (remanding so that the “parties should have a chance to develop a more complete record on convenience to witnesses and the promotion of the ends of justice”). The circuit court should require the putative father, Byer, to undergo a paternity test. We suspend the question whether SDCL 25-8-59 is unconstitutional. We will defer judgment on this question until the facts are fully developed. Since we previously reversed this matter in Byer I, we now *708remand for the circuit court to make further factual determinations as noted above.
[¶ 9.] Remanded.
[¶ 10.] SABERS and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur. [¶ 11.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice and ZINTER, Justice, dissent.