¶ 1 Gregory J. Gatti appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County determining that under the doctrine of paternity by estoppel, Gatti is estopped from denying paternity and therefore he is the legal father of B.J.G., born May 25, 2001. Because we find the trial court erred in concluding that the record was devoid of evidence of misrepresentation, we reverse.1
¶ 2 Gatti, who was never married to Kelly N. Gebler (Mother), held the child out as his own under Mother’s misrepresentation that he was the only one having sexual relations with Mother at the time of conception. He ceased acting as the child’s father when he learned that he was not the biological father. The child was eighteen months old at that time. Since the doctrine of paternity by estoppel is aimed at “achieving fairness as between the parents by holding them, both mother and father, to their prior conduct,” it cannot be applied under these facts. Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721, 723 (1999), quoting Freedman v. McCandless, 539 Pa. 584, 654 A.2d 529, 532-33 (1995). To do so would defy principles of equity, punishing the party that sought to do the right thing and rewarding the party that has perpetrated a fraud. See Kohler v. Bleem, 439 Pa.Super 385, 654 A.2d 569, 575-576 (1995). A full discussion follows.
Facts
¶ 3 Mother and Gatti were involved in a seven-year relationship; they never married. Toward the end of the relationship, Mother learned she was pregnant. Gatti believed that he was the father and so he helped Mother prepare for the birth, attended the birth, and had his name put on the child’s birth certificate. Unbeknownst to Gatti, but certainly known to Mother, Mother had had a sexual relationship with another man around the time she conceived B.J.G.
¶ 4 By the time the child was nine months old, Gatti and Mother ended their relationship. Mother filed an action against Gatti for support. Still under the belief that he and Mother had had an exclusive relationship, Gatti entered into a stipulated support order and attended a custody conciliation conference. Gatti paid support and exercised his custody rights until February 2003, when the child was eighteen months old.
¶ 5 Thereafter, Gatti noticed that the child did not seem to resemble him and had a private DNA test performed, which excluded him as the father. In September 2004, he filed a motion to allow a second DNA paternity test, as the first would not be accepted by the court. The court ordered that: (1) putative father Ray Sisson be added as a party; (2) all parties and the child submit to DNA testing; and (3) DNA test results would not be dispositive of the issue of child support.
¶ 6 The DNA test results excluded Gatti as the biological father. Thereafter, the *3court held a hearing and argument. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that the principle of paternity by estoppel applied and that, as a result of his actions and his failure to raise or show fraud or misrepresentation, Gatti was es-topped from denying paternity. We disagree.
Discussion
A. Presumption of Paternity and Paternity by Estoppel
¶ 7 If a child is born out of wedlock, the presumption of paternity does not apply because there is no intact family to protect. Brinkley v. King, 549 Pa. 241, 701 A.2d 176 (1997). If the presumption does not apply, the putative father is entitled to a hearing on the issue of estoppel. Brinkley, supra; B.S. v. T.M., 782 A.2d 1031 (Pa.Super.2001); Barnard v. Anderson, 767 A.2d 592 (Pa.Super.2001).
¶ 8 The doctrine of paternity by estoppel is codified at 23 Pa.C.S. § 5102, where one of the statutory means of establishing paternity is holding out the child as one’s own and providing support.2
B. Proof of fraud or misrepresentation precludes application of paternity by es-toppel
¶ 9 Where, as here, there is no intact family unit to protect, the presumption of paternity does not apply. Whether the estoppel doctrine applies depends upon the particular facts of the case. Estoppel in paternity actions is based on the public policy that children should be secure in knowing who their parents are; if a person has acted as the parent and bonded with the child, the child should not be required to suffer the potentially damaging trauma that may come from being told that the father he has known all his life is not in fact his father. T.L.F. v. D.W.T., 796 A.2d 358 (Pa.Super.2002).
¶ 10 Here, the trial court determined that Gatti held himself out as the father for the first eighteen months of the child’s life, acknowledged paternity of the child at birth, entered into a support order and exercised his custody rights. The court concluded, therefore, that under these facts estoppel was applicable and Gatti was estopped from denying paternity. See Fish v. Behers, 559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721 (1999); Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa.Super. 192, 661 A.2d 370 (1995). Under that doctrine, the court stated, Gatti was precluded “from challenging the status that he previously accepted.” (Trial Court Opinion, 1/12/05 at 4).
¶ 11 This is an accurate, though incomplete, statement of the law. The court disregards the fact that Gatti was operating under the belief that he in fact was the father, because Mother never indicated to him that it was possible that another man could be the father. That he embraced that status for a relatively short period of time solely because he was misled is a critical factor the trial court overlooks.
¶ 12 In its supplemental opinion, the trial court acknowledged that evidence of fraud is relevant to the estoppel analysis *4and that “a putative father -will not be estopped from denying paternity when fraudulent conduct induces that putative father into treating the child as his own.” (Supplemental Opinion, 3/15/05 at 1, citing J.C. v. J.S., 826 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super.2003); Doran v. Doran, 820 A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super.2003)). The court concluded, however, that Gatti presented no evidence that Mother misrepresented the fact that Gatti was the father and that he raises the issue for the first time in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. We disagree. This analysis ignores both the evidence of record and the realities of the circumstances here.
¶ 13 Clearly, Mother is holding all the cards here; only she knew that another man might be the biological father and only she could inform Gatti. The mother is the only one who knows who the possible fathers are, at least until a paternity test is done. Mother’s failure to provide Gatti with the information that only she knew, and which she knew if she divulged would provide Gatti with a clear understanding of the matter, lulled him into believing he was the father. Mother concealed that which should have been disclosed, and Gatti acted accordingly. The trial court noted that Mother might have thought the child was most likely Gatti’s rather than the other man she was having relations with. However, she was the one that knew she was having relations with someone else and never revealed it to Gat-ti. This constitutes fraud or at least misrepresentation, and it is undisputed in the record:
Q: Did she say to you that you were the father?
A: Yes, she did.
Q: Based upon that information what did you do?
A: I took the role as a responsible father, and I cared for the child, thinking that it was mine. I was the only one she had relations with.
:■{ ‡ ❖
Q: ... |Y]ou acknowledged paternity when the child was born. We just covered that, you did that, right? You acknowledged the child was yours?
A: Through what she was saying to me I believed so.
(N.T., 1/11/05 at p. 12, 21). See B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa.Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313, 315 (1991) (“When an allegation of fraud is injected in a case, the whole tone and tenor of the matter changes. It opens the door to overturning settled issues and policies of the law.”).3
¶ 14 This case is distinguishable from Zadori v. Zadori, 443 Pa.Super. 192, 661 A.2d 370 (1995), where this Court held appellant was estopped from denying paternity. There, appellant knew the child was not his on the date the child was born, and in fact acknowledged that the full term child was born only three months after the parties began sexual relations. Id. at 195, 661 A.2d 370. Despite knowing this, appellant agreed to amend the child’s birth certificate to list himself as the birth father and thereafter the parties along with the child lived together as a family for almost three years after the child’s birth. Id.
¶ 15 Here, by contrast, Gatti was essentially in the dark during the relevant time period and, once he learned the truth, he *5disengaged. He cannot, under these facts, be held to those actions.
¶ 16 We note also that even where the father and child relationship has been established, unlike the case here, evidence of fraud or misrepresentation may preclude application of the doctrine. See Doran, swpra (following the DNA test that excluded the appellant as the father of the 11-year-old child, the appellant no longer held the child out as his own; this Court held estoppel did not apply); see also Moody, supra (where appellant was misled at the time he signed the agreed order of support, this Court refused to apply paternity by estoppel or res judicata); cf. V.R., et al. v. G.W., 809 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.2002) (acknowledgement of paternity must be rescinded within two years of discovering fraud).
¶ 17 Thus,, the considerations underlying the public policy that drives application of the doctrine are not present here: there is no discernible relationship between the child and Gatti; Gatti discontinued acting as father when he learned that he was not the biological father; and the child is not left unprotected since putative father Ray Sisson has been added as a party and blood tests have determined him to be the biological father. Further, the strong public policy against permitting a party who has acted in reliance upon a misrepresentation to suffer harm as a result precludes application of estoppel here. Whoever mother guessed as the probable father, she knew it was not certain that the father was Gatti. Before assuming responsibility for a child that might not be his, he needs to know that. It is clear from our review of the record that Mother’s concealment was intended to deceive Gatti. See B.O., supra; cf. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 795 A.2d 408 (Pa.Super.2002) (rejecting fraud argument where no evidence of record was cited to support conclusion that mother fraudulently caused appellant to acknowledge paternity).
Conclusion
¶ 18 The trial court erred in applying the doctrine of paternity by estoppel. There is no intact family to protect; there is no discernible level of a relationship between the child and Gatti; Gatti discontinued holding himself out as father once he learned he was not the biological father; and Gatti’s behavior as a responsible father for eighteen months was caused by Mother’s concealment of the truth. Under the facts of this case, application of the paternity by estoppel doctrine is precluded.
¶ 19 Reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
¶ 20 TAMILIA, J., files a Dissenting Opinion.
. We note that no appeal was taken from the support order. Ordinarily, this would render the matter res judicata and determine paternity as a matter of law. See Manze v. Manze, 362 Pa.Super. 153, 523 A.2d 821 (1987). However, for reasons stated infra, neither res judicata nor paternity by estoppel is applicable here. See Moody v. Moody, 822 A.2d 39 (Pa.Super.2003).
. Determination of paternity. — For purposes of prescribing benefits to children born out of wedlock by, from and through the father, paternity shall be determined by any one of the following ways:
(1) If the parents of a child born out of wedlock have married each other.
(2) If, during the lifetime of the child, it is determined by clear and convincing evidence that the father openly holds out the child to be his and either receives the child into his home or provides support for the child.
(3)If there is clear and convincing evidence that the man was the father of the child, which may include a prior court determination of paternity.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5102(b).
. The test for fraud is: (1) a misrepresentation; (2) a fraudulent utterance; (3) an intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby by induced to act; (4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation; and (5) damage to the recipient as a proximate result. B.O. v. C.O., 590 A.2d at 315.