Upon review of this Court's jurisprudence, it seems that statute of limitations issues have arisen only in limited situations involving a parent's duty of support. S.C. Dep't ofSoc. Serv. v. Lowman, 269 S.C. 41, 236 S.E.2d 194 (1977). In Lowman, this Court held that the general statute of limitations applied to a support obligation but only in an action to seek retroactive child support.

The probate code does not provide a statute of limitations for determining paternity. Relying on South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Lowman, 269 S.C. 41, 236 S.E.2d 194 (1977), Doe asserts that the general three-year statute of limitations should govern paternity actions. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (Supp. 2002).

See Stephens v. Hamrick,supra. The North Carolina Court of Appeals clearly held that because the child support obligation is continuous, the doctrine of laches does not apply to bar enforcement of a child support order. Id; see also South Carolina Dep't of Soc.Servs. v. Lowman, 269 S.C. 41, 48, 236 S.E.2d 194, 196 (1977) (the duty of child support is a continuing obligation). Accordingly, the doctrine of laches does not apply in the instant case to petitioner's claims for retroactive child support, health insurance premiums, and medical expenses.

The husband thus can recover from the natural father his community share of those funds spent for the daughter's necessaries that were expended within three years prior to the date on which the husband filed his cross-claim. See Winston v. Robinson, 270 Ark. 996, 999, 606 S.W.2d 757, 759 (1980) (statute of limitations does not bar entire cause of action, only support for period more than three years prior to filing of complaint); Commonwealth v. Chase, 385 Mass. 461, 472 n. 8, 432 N.E.2d 510, 517 n. 8 (1982) (six-year bar does not preclude bringing action during child's minority; it only limits the extent of defendant's retroactive financial exposure); Tidwell v. Booker, 290 N.C. 98, 116, 225 S.E.2d 816, 827 (1976); South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Lowman, 269 S.C. 41, 46, 236 S.E.2d 194, 196 (1977). III.

A parent has a continuing obligation to support her child. S.C. Department of Social Services v. Lowman, 269 S.C. 41, 236 S.E.2d 194 (1977). It is a common law duty, embodied by statute, which exists even in the absence of an agreement or court order.

ection 395; 165 S.C. 33, 162 S.E. 599; 149 S.C. 178, 146 S.E. 815; 68 S.C. 554, 48 S.E. 4; 216 S.C. 334, 58 S.E.2d 83; 212 S.C. 337, 47 S.E.2d 788; 220 S.C. 469, 68 S.E.2d 421; § 21-19-130 of the 1976 Code. As to the doctrine of parens patriae: 65 S.Ct. 716, 722, 324 U.S. 439; 179 P.2d 57; Article 12, § 1 and § 2 of the S.C. Constitution of 1895; Title 44 of the 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina; 258 F. 752; 40 F. Supp. 941; 183 Ky. 516, 209 S.W. 524; 182 Ky. 330, 206 S.W. 486; 505 So.2d 364, 210 Miss. 645; 86 Okla. 1, 205 P. 917. Thomas E. Smith, Jr., of Nettles, Thomy and Smith, Pamplico, for Murdock Hanna, Respondent, cites: As tothe South Carolina Department of Mental Health not havingthe capacity to bring this action under Section 44-23-780,Section 44-23-710, or under the doctrine of parens patriae: 193 S.C. 412, 8 S.E.2d 740; 229 S.C. 519, 93 S.E.2d 873; 137 S.C. 11; 134 S.C. 859; 46 N.Y.S.2d 54; 42 F. Supp. 436; 68 S.C. 554, 48 S.E. 4; 170 P. 492; 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625; 236 S.E.2d 194; 474 F.2d 774; 199 S.C. 490, 20 S.E.2d 107. February 9, 1978.