in child support proceedings. Several cases outside this jurisdiction have specifically addressed that issue and have refused to apply the doctrine in a child support situation. See Fuller v. Fuller, 247 A.2d 767, 769-70 (D.C.1968) (stating that the duty of the natural father of an illegitimate child to support his child is a continuing one, not relieved based on the conduct of another treating the child as though she was his natural child or by the mother’s subsequent marriage to another); Dep’t of Human Res. v. Tabb, 221 Ga.App. 766, 472 S.E.2d 540, 541 (1996) (stating that application of virtual adoption doctrine was confined to inheritance cases and not applicable to a dispute as to responsibility for child support); see also Burke v. Burke, 137 Conn. 74, 75 A.2d 42, 45 (1950) (<HOLDING>); Hobus v. Hobus, 540 N.W.2d 158, 161
holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding that an illegitimate child is guaranteed a right of support from his father holding that plaintiff had cared for his father who suffered severe depression after murder of his daughter within meaning of fmla interim regulation because inter alia he discussed with his father grief associated with murder and provided reassuring physical presence to his father holding that petitioner could maintain his action seeking parental rights and responsibilities under rsa chapter 461a notwithstanding his lack of biological relationship to the child so long as he alleges sufficient facts to establish his status as a parent by other means holding that a father cannot relieve himself of his primary liability to maintain his child by entering into a contract with someone else to do so