Appellant was in a relationship with the minor’s mother when the minor was conceived, lived with her during the pregnancy, and was present at the minor’s birth. He signed a certificate at the hospital stating that he was the baby’s father, and was designated on the birth certificate as the father. He supported the child financially and cared for him, and believed himself to be the father. Further, the minor considered him to be his father. During dependency proceedings several years later, genetic testing excluded appellant as the biological father. Appellant’s motion for presumed father status was denied, and the matter was eventually referred for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Here, the appellate court found that the biological proof of non-paternity “trumped” the presumption of paternity. Although it might have been completely appropriate to allow appellant to take custody of the child with whom he had a parent-child relationship since birth, the statutes do not allow it. The results of biological tests can viewed as nothing other than mandatory.