In County of Orange v. Leslie B. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 976, the Court of Appeal refused to apply the presumption that the husband was the child's father. The husband, Gregory, was still married to his wife, Catherine, when she had a sexual relationship with Leslie. (Leslie B., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.) Catherine gave birth to Jennifer in 1977, a few months before her divorce to Gregory became final. The men, Gregory and Leslie, learned about Jennifer's birth more than 10 years later. After the district attorney filed an action to establish paternity and obtain support for Jennifer, the parties voluntarily took blood tests which showed a 99.25 percent probability that Leslie was Jennifer's natural father and conclusively showed that Gregory was not. Leslie argued, however, that Gregory was conclusively presumed to be Jennifer's legal father because Jennifer was conceived while Catherine was cohabitating with her husband, Gregory. (Leslie B., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.) The Court of Appeal explained that in In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636, the California Supreme Court developed a balancing test to determine whether applying the presumption violated the due process rights of a putative father wishing to rebut it. This balancing test requires the weighing of the competing private and state interests. The Court of Appeal reasoned that "logic dictates the same test should apply to determine whether not applying the presumption violates the putative father's due process rights." (Leslie B., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 981.) The Court of Appeal observed that "the presumption was never intended as a financial prophylactic for men who have affairs with married women." (Leslie B., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 981.) The court concluded that based on the facts of the case before it, none of the policies underlying the presumption would be furthered if the presumption were applied and indeed application of the presumption "would lead to a ridiculous result." (Id. at p. 983.) The court explained: "If Leslie prevailed Jennifer would be 'given' a father whom she knows is not her natural father, to preserve the integrity of a family unit that never existed. Catherine, Gregory and Jennifer have never lived together as a family, they share no ties other than those that exist due to a long-ago failed marriage of brief duration. Contrary to Leslie's assertions, to apply the presumption will not remove 'the stigma of illegitimacy' from Jennifer. She knows Gregory is not her father. She has never been held out as his daughter. She believes Leslie is her father and blood tests have confirmed it. Finally, the state's interest in establishing a source of child support is completely served by declaring Leslie to be the legal father. In contrast to how poorly the state's interests would be served in this case by the application of the presumption of paternity, Jennifer's interests are well served by avoiding the presumption. To name Leslie as her legal father entitles her to benefits she is currently unable to receive. She will be entitled to financial assistance from him and will finally have a legal as well as a biological father. While Leslie may suffer some financial hardship as a result of his being declared Jennifer's legal father, this is far outweighed by the benefits to her." (Ibid.) Quoting "the learned trial judge," the Court of Appeal concluded that "'applying the presumption leads to an absurd result that defies reason and common sense. To apply the presumption is to rely upon a fiction to establish a legal fact which we know to be untrue, in order to protect policies which in this case do not exist.'" (Ibid.)