Appellant was the stepfather of the minor, T.R., and had lived with her and her mother for seven years. T.R. was declared a dependent due to risk of sexual abuse by appellant, who had a history of molesting other children and who had engaged in inappropriate conduct with T.R. Appellant appealed the order denying him presumed father status. The appellate court affirmed. Although appellant acknowledged T.R. as his daughter and provided financial support, these factors cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Appellant did not even know T.R. until she was three years old. He was a convicted sex offender who was less than candid about disclosing this to T.R.’s mother. Appellant’s conduct was antithetical to a parent’s role, and more than counterbalanced the factors favoring his presumed father status. Even if the court erred by failing to presume father status, the error was harmless because the presumption was amply rebutted.