In Michael K. T. v. Tina L. T., 182 W. Va. 399, 387 S.E.2d 866 (1989), the Court held that while the legal presumption of paternity that arises from birth or conception in wedlock is rebuttable, blood test results that factually exclude the biological paternity of a man who is legally presumed to be a child's father because of the child's birth in wedlock are not necessarily admissible to rebut the legal presumption. The Court held that if a person has held himself out as the father of a child for such a time that disproof of paternity would result in undeniable harm to the child, blood test results may be ruled to be inadmissible. (The Court also held that whenever a court faces a claim seeking to disprove a child's paternity, a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the interests of a minor child.) The Court emphasized the necessity for concentration upon the rights of the child and explained as follows in syllabus point two: "When a putative father seeks to use blood test results to disprove his paternity and rebut the presumption of legitimacy which has attached to a child born of a valid marriage, an in camera hearing should be held in order for the circuit court to make a preliminary determination whether the equities surrounding the particular facts and circumstances of the case warrant admission of blood test results." The Court based that ruling "upon the inherent inequity which results when a man is forced to bear the financial burden of child support when he did not father the child or knowingly hold the child out to be his own." 182 W.Va. at 404, 387 S.E.2d at 871. In syllabus point three of Michael K.T., the Court explained that a trial court "should refuse to admit blood test evidence which would disprove paternity when the individual attempting to disestablish paternity has held himself out to be the father of the child for a sufficient period of time such that disproof of paternity would result in undeniable harm to the child." Syllabus point four of Michael K.T. also provided the requirement that "[a] guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the interests of the minor child whenever an action is initiated to disprove a child's paternity." 182 W. Va. at 400, 387 S.E.2d at 867.