Mathias, J.
Wendy Parker (“Parker”) sought arrears of child support owed by Derek Elwood (“Elwood”), Parker’s ex-husband and father of her two daughters, since 1995. LaPorte Superior Court ordered Elwood to pay more than $150,000 in support arrears plus interest and attorneys’ fees. From this order, Elwood now appeals.
We affirm.
….
Parker is a dentist in Michigan City, Indiana. Elwood is an insurance agent in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Parker and Elwood were married for a short time in the 1990s when they both lived in Michigan City. During their marriage, they had two children: J., their elder daughter, and E., their younger daughter. Elwood and Parker divorced in 1995 soon after E. was born. LaPorte Superior Court gave Parker custody of the two girls and ordered Elwood to pay support in the amount of $169.62 per week. Elwood moved in with his parents, who lived in Michigan City. He made fewer than four months’ payments totaling $2,056.96 and then disappeared. Elwood never made another payment
….
Here, Elwood effectively sought a retroactive modification of the support order entered as part of the divorce proceedings in 1995. The trial court correctly ruled that “[a] court may not retroactively modify an obligor’s duty to pay a delinquent support payment absent certain [here inapplicable] exceptions.” Appellant’s App. p. 21. That is the end of the matter.
Nevertheless, Elwood seeks the intervention of “equity and public policy . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 11. The public policy of this state, “[e]xpressed by all three branches of [its] government,” is to “protect[] the welfare of children.” Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. 1994) (voiding contract purporting to relieve father of support obligation). This is the primary purpose of the rule against retroactive modification. See Whited, 859 N.E.2d at 662. We know of no public policy in favor of protecting delinquent child support obligors.
Equity does not intervene on Elwood’s behalf for the same reason: as quasitrustees, parents cannot defeat a child’s right to court-ordered support by their own conduct. Thus, neither laches nor estoppel will bar a claim for support arrear. Schrock v. Gonser, 658 N.E.2d 615, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied; Ort v. Schage, 580 N.E.2d 335, 336–37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); Pickett v. Pickett, 470 N.E.2d 751, 754–55 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). Similarly, Parker cannot be “unjust[ly] enrich[ed]” or enjoy a “double recovery” by Elwood’s discharge of his court-ordered obligation to his daughters. Appellant’s Br. at 13. Elwood argues that Parker’s “unclean hands” bar her claim, id. at 14, but he gets it backwards. It is not Parker’s hands which must be clean before she asserts her legal claim, but Elwood’s before he asserts his (in this case unavailable) equitable defense to that claim. See, e.g., Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“[H]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands.”), trans. denied.
Finally, Elwood invokes the doctrine of in loco parentis. It is usually the state that is said to stand in loco parentis — in place of a parent — to a child in certain disciplinary contexts. Snow v. England, 862 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ind. 1997). A person who stands in loco parentis to a child may be found to have incurred a duty to support the child while the relationship exists, but the relationship itself does not give rise to such a duty without more. Id. at 667. However, Elwood has pointed us to no authority, and we find none, holding that such a relationship can relieve a genetic parent of his court-ordered support obligation. It would indeed work an “unjust enrichment,” Appellant’s Br. at 13, and a windfall to Elwood to allow him to benefit from Newcomb’s love and solicitude for J. and E.
Conclusion
The trial court did not clearly err when it ordered Elwood to pay the full amount of support arrears owed by him since 1995. Its judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.