In Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22the Supreme Court held for the first time that in an action brought by the state to establish the defendant's paternity of a minor child and to enforce child support, the indigent defendant was entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him. The court held that the manner in which the judgments in that case had been obtained without the assistance of counsel for the father was unfair and unreliable, and that the appointment of counsel was necessary to enable the accused father to defend fully and fairly. ( Id., at pp. 31-34.) However, notwithstanding that "lack of counsel seriously impinges upon the integrity of the fact-finding process," ( Id., at p. 34) the Supreme Court did not render its decision retroactive. The decision was limited to the appellants in that case and to all cases not final as of the date of the finality of that opinion. ( Id., at p. 34.) Rejecting retroactive application of the decision, the court stated: "However, where a judgment of paternity has become final, obligations, and, in some cases, familial relationships have been established by that judgment. Therefore, this court holds that in cases where a judgment of paternity has become final, the fact that the defendant did not have counsel may not be advanced as a reason to attack that judgment." ( Id., p. 34.)