court relied, too, on Wener v. Wener, 35 A.D.2d 50, 312 N.Y.S.2d 815, 818 (1970), in which the court held that a husband who impliedly agreed to support the child was obligated to provide sup of equitable adoption to impose a child support obligation. See, e.g., Johnson, 617 N.W.2d at 105-08; Geramifar v. Geramifar, 113 Md.App. 495, 688 A.2d 475, 478-79 (Spec.App.1997) (stating that the case was a “textbook example of an equitable adoption” in which neither adoptive parent was plication of the equitable adoption doctrine beyond its intended scope. We are unpersuaded that the doctrine should be expanded to child support under these circumstances. We are also unpersuaded that Bowdoin has any standing to assert the doctrine for his own benefit. Even were the doctri M. 206, 959 P.2d 540 (<HOLDING>). {33} We note that, in applying equitable
holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding that single payment of 15 upon learning of stepparents intention to adopt the child did not constitute maintenance and support holding that misrepresentation by a woman to a man that she was practicing birth control was insufficient under the uniform parentage act and new mexico public policy to relieve the man as the biological father of child support obligation holding biological father responsible under uniform parentage act for back child support notwithstanding stepparents support of child