fatherhood is inconsistent with adoption principles. It is also important to remember that we do not recognize equitable adoption. The majority relies on the Michigan case of Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich.App. 601, 408 N.W.2d 516 (1987), wherein the Michigan court of appeals adopted the theory of equitable parenthood. In doing so the Michigan court recognized that the legal relationship created by the theory of equitable parenthood is “akin” to the doctrine of equitable adoption, recognized in Michigan. Atkinson, 408 N.W.2d at 520. In contrast, adoptions in Iowa are exclusively creatures of statute. In re B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239, 241 (Iowa 1993). Indeed, we have required strict adherence to our adoption laws. E.g., id. at 243; Sampson v. Holton, 185 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1971) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we are establishing parenthood
holding that the failure of the parties to follow the adoption provisions in any material respect deprives the court of the power to decree an adoption holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that plaintiffs failure to offer any evidence with respect to the convenience of the parties means that this factor militates against him holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid