In re M.T. CA1/3

facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls” (§ 7612, subd. (b)). The court acknowledged J.R. “has taken on the role of father to [the child], held [the child] out as his [child] . . . . He has provided for [the child] on a daily basis when he lived in the home. He was present at [the child‟s] birth, and obviously loves and cherishes his relationship with [the child].” Nevertheless, the court found that “unlike most of the cases that discuss the extant familial relationship versus mere biology, [A.S.] is not a mere biological father. Nor is this case about establishing biological ties. It is a case in which I must choose which developing parent/child relationship should be preserved and protected. And to do that I turn to the specifics of the case. [¶] When, upon learning that [mother] was pregnant and believing that he might be [the child‟s] father, [A.S.] made every possible effort to establish his role as father. He offered both personal care and resources for [the child] and was repeatedly rebuffed. But for mother‟s assurance that [A.S.] was not [the child‟s] father and her complete resistance to let him participate in [the child‟s] life, it…