Frank Sabattus appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court *171(Washington County, Mar sano, J.) affirming in part and vacating in part the judgment entered in the District Court (Calais, Romei, J.) determining paternity and authorizing the Department of Human Services and the child’s mother to collect past and future expenses relating to child support. Sabattus contends that an adoption decree entered in the Washington County Probate Court relieves him of any duty to support the child, and that the District Court erred by denying his motion pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the judgment. The Department cross-appeals, contending that the Superior Court erred in concluding that the adoption decree is valid and bars the Department from bringing an action on behalf of the child’s mother. Although we do not conclude that the adoption decree is void, we nevertheless determine that, in the absence of the child support obligations being assumed by an additional party, the adoption of the child by its natural mother does not relieve Sabat-tus of his obligation to pay child support. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for the entry of a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court.
The Department commenced this action against Sabattus in the District Court pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 271, 272 & 448-A (1981 & Supp.1995) on its own behalf and on behalf of Kathy H. to determine paternity and establish a child support obligation regarding a child born to Kathy H. out of wedlock in 1986. Sabattus admits paternity but denies any duty to support the child because he contends that an adoption decree issued to the child’s natural mother, Kathy H., reheves him of any further obligation to pay child support. The court determined Sabattus to be the biological father of the child, and entered judgments of paternity and for the payment of child support and medical expenses on behalf of the State and Kathy H. in the amount of $22,050.66. The court further ordered Sabattus to pay current child support in the amount of $72 per week. Sabattus filed a motion for relief from the judgment, M.R.Civ.P. 60(b), as well as an appeal to the Superior Court. The District Court denied Sabattus’s Rule 60(b) motion.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed that part of the District Court judgment concluding that the Department is entitled to reimbursement from Sabattus for past and future child support expenses. The court vacated that part of the judgment obligating Sabattus to pay monies to the Department on behalf of Kathy H., holding that the adoption decree precludes the Department from acting on behalf of the adoptive mother against the father who consented to the adoption. The Superior Court remanded to the District Court for a determination of the past and future amounts of support that the Department had expended or will expend on behalf of the child. The appeals by Sabattus and the Department followed.
When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we review directly the decision of the District Court. Page v. Page, 671 A.2d 956, 957 (Me.1996). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for relief from a judgment. McKinley v. McKinley, 651 A.2d 821, 828 (Me.1994).
The adoption petition on which Sabattus relies to relieve him of the obligation to support his child was brought by Kathy H. in the Probate Court. Sabattus, as the child’s father, consented to the adoption of the child by Kathy H., and a decree to that effect was granted on October 29, 1991. No action has been brought by the Department to set aside that adoption decree. Sabattus contends that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion for relief from the judgment and erred by holding that the adoption decree does not reheve him from all parental responsibilities regarding support payments for the child. He contends that because a natural parent may adopt her own child, and because the adoption statute in effect at the time provided that “the natural parents are divested of all legal rights in respect to such child,” and that the child is “to all intents and purposes the child of his adopters,” 19 M.R.S.A. § 535 (1981), repealed by P.L.1993, ch. 686, § 3 (effective Aug. 1, 1994), any duty of support regarding the child has been terminated. In particular, Sabattus relies on language formerly found in 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (1981) providing that “[a]ny husband and wife jointly, or any un*172married person, resident or nonresident of the State of Maine, may petition the probate court to adopt a person, regardless of age_”1 (Emphasis added.) He points to the repeal of prior language limiting adoption by adults to children “not theirs by birth”2 as an indication of legislative intent that the adoption by the child’s mother is valid. Because the adoption is valid, he argues, it operates to terminate his obligation of support. We disagree.
We construe our adoption statutes to protect the rights and privileges of the child being adopted. In re Goodwin’s Estate, 147 Me. 237, 243-44, 86 A.2d 88 (1952); see also Porter v. Hoffman, 592 A.2d 482, 487 (Me.1991) (referring to state’s interest in the welfare of the child in the context of adoption). We previously have held that the overriding concern of serving the best interest and welfare of a minor child requires that support obligations be treated as the equal responsibility of both the mother and the father, to be discharged in accordance with their respective ability and capacity. Gardner v. Perry, 405 A.2d 721, 725 (Me.1979).
As the child’s father, Sabattus owes a duty of support to that child. 19 M.R.S.A. § 271. The obligation may be enforced by the child’s mother and by the Department. 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 271, 448 & 448-A. The obligation to support a child cannot be terminated by agreement between the child’s parents. See Department of Human Servs. v. Webster, 398 A.2d 792, 794 (Me.1979) (court approved paternity settlement entered into by mother and father did not bar Department from bringing action to compel father to contribute to child’s support).
Although a number of jurisdictions have held in similar contexts that an adoption by a child’s natural parent is void or voidable, see, e.g., State ex rel. T.R.L. by Avery v. R.L.P., 772 P.2d 1054, 1058 (Wyo.1989) (adoption of her own child by mother with no plans for marriage purporting to terminate child support obligation of father void in absence of adequate representation of child’s interests), Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So.2d 665, 669-70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (custodial parent’s agreement in adoption context to release noncustodial parent from obligation to pay court ordered child support in exchange for noncustodial parent’s agreement to relinquish visitation rights is voidable); Green v. Sollenberger, 656 A.2d 773, 778-79 (Md.1995) (adoption statute cannot be used as mechanism for natural mother to sever natural father’s rights and obligations to child), the applicable statutory language on its face allows a single biological parent to adopt her own child. 19 M.R.S.A. § 535 provides that a natural parent who consents to the child’s adoption gives up his legal rights with respect to the child. Unlike the language provided in 22 M.R.S.A. § 2056, dealing with the termination of parental duties and responsibilities, section 535 does not explicitly provide for the termination of the parent’s responsibilities. 19 M.R.S.A. § 535. Based on that language, and the strong interest the state has in protecting the interests of children and insuring that both parents contribute to the support of their children, see 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 271, 272, 273, 448-A, we conclude that an adoption of a child by the natural mother, in the absence of a corresponding assumption of those child support obligations by a new person, such as the mother’s husband, does not operate to allow the father to avoid his support obligations when the child’s interests are not represented in the adoption proceeding.
The entry is:
Judgment of the Superior Court vacated. Remanded for the entry of a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court.
WATHEN, C.J., and RUDMAN and DANA, JJ., concurring.
. 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 531-538 (1981), in effect at the time of the adoption proceeding, have since been repealed, P.L.1993, ch. 686, § 3 (effective Aug. 1, 1994), and replaced by 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 1101— 1136 (Supp.1995); P.L.1993, ch. 686, § 5.
. The language, formerly found in R.S. ch. 72, § 35 (1916), was deleted by P.L.1921, ch. 124, § 35 (effective July 9, 1921).