R.B. held himself out as the minor’s father, and accepted her into his home. Mother also claimed that R.B. was the minor’s father. R.B. treated the minor as his own, and his paternity was not questioned until the minor’s biological father, H.O., appeared. The trial court found R.B. to be the de facto father, and H.O. to be the presumed father. The appellate court here reversed the dispositional order, and ordered that R.B. be designated a presumed father, and that H.O. was not a presumed father. R.B. met the statutory elements of presumed fatherhood status. He provided for the minor financially, he held her out as his own, he had a close relationship with her, and he took her into his home when she was removed from her mother’s care. H.O., on the other hand, had no familial relationship with the minor, and had never provided for her. The record lacked substantial evidence to support the determination of him as a presumed father. The trial court’s interpretation that a determination of biological parenthood defeated appellant’s presumed father status was incorrect.