to be extended to the child support context, the doctrine must be asserted by or on behalf of the child, not by the biological father for his own benefit. Further, we are unpersuaded that a biological father can be relieved of his obligation to support his child through an adoption agreement among the biological father, the biological mother, and a proposed and expectant adoptive father who expresses his intent to adopt. Under New Mexico law, a biological father cannot walk away from his parental child support responsibilities without court approval. In New Mexico, there exists at the very least a presumption that the biological father is responsible for child support absent court-ordered relief to the contrary. See Wallis v. Smith, 2001-NMCA-017, ¶¶ 8-9, 16, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682 (<HOLDING>); Tedford v. Gregory, 1998-NMCA-067, ¶ 24, 125
holding biological father responsible under uniform parentage act for back child support notwithstanding stepparents support of child 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 that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that a woman can consent to a search of a bedroom shared by herself and the man she lived with including the closet holding that unmarried father is entitled to show that he could not have reasonably expected his biological child to be born in utah after biological mother left california immediately prior to childs birth without informing father where birth would occur