parenting

On the surface, Massachusetts’ Department of Public Health program, “Welcome Family,” sounds practical.

Here’s how the state pitches the program on its website:

Before you take your newborn home, be sure to talk with a nurse about making an appointment with Welcome Family, the free 90-minute visit with a nurse who’s experienced in supporting moms and newborns.

The nurse will check on your health, answer your questions, help address your most pressing needs, and connect you to other resources in your community.

There’s a lot to know about caring for yourself and your newborn.

You may feel overwhelmed by all of the instructions you’re getting.

And once you’re home, you may have new questions you never thought to ask, about your health or your baby’s health.

Most moms do.

That’s why Welcome Family is here so you can get the answers you need.

The core of the Bay State’s “Welcome Family” program has been on the books since 2013, but it’s making headlines this week, after Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey announced plans to expand it.

“Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you’re going to have a home visit within days, weeks and that will be an opportunity for a healthcare provider to make an assessment to see if you need some additional support and resources,” she said on Boston’s Public Radio.

Reports suggest the expansion of the program, which is voluntary, was motivated by the fallout of the Lindsay Clancy case, the 36-year-old Massachusetts woman who murdered her three young children. Individuals sympathetic to Clancy have suggested she was poorly served by the mental health care she was receiving – or not receiving.

To be sure, postpartum depression is a very real issue, and Clancy was receiving treatment for it. 

Yet, the fundamental issue and concern about the program’s expansion centers on how much, if any, government involvement is appropriate when it comes to families bringing home a newborn.

While the program is technically “voluntary,” are families being pressured to go along – and if they don’t, are they vulnerable to investigation? Is it even appropriate for a government employee coming into someone’s private home absent any suspicion or complaints?

In the “Welcome Family” program, the state’s nurses aren’t just examining the baby but also screening for signs of substance abuse, domestic violence, nutritional deficiencies in the home, and broader access to healthcare and other services. While some of those assessments might be clear-cut, others are unquestionably subjective. Even some of the seemingly black-and-white issues may generate unfair and unsubstantiated accusations that take time, energy and emotion to resolve.

Do we really want to give the state more access to mothers and fathers and children? Keep in mind this is the same state that recently expanded its abortion laws to allow the killing of a child up to the moment of birth.

Interestingly and tellingly, Massachusetts officials say the program exists to determine whether the baby and family have the support they need from family and friends. Implied in that goal is a case against the expansion of the program itself.

Before the government assumes the role of becoming the default support network for a newborn, families, friends, neighbors and churches should be the ones encouraged to serve in that capacity. Rather than have Big Brother usurp the role, why not ask those surrounding the newborn to step up and help?

Newborns don’t need bureaucrats – they need family, friends, and loving and supporting church members willing to help in times of need.

According to media reports, the Trump administration is planning to subsidize and incentivize married families who choose to have a spouse stay at home and care for their child or children.

The drafted proposal reportedly revises a current federal child care subsidy program.  

The existing “Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)” sends federal money to states, which then have the authority to distribute it to individuals and families. It evolved over the years following welfare reform, which attempted to tie assistance to work. With more parents working, government officials determined that parents needed more assistance to pay for child care.

Currently, over 870,000 families or 1.4 million children receive the subsidy under the program.

Since beginning his second term, President Trump has vowed to lead the way in advocating for policies that encourage and serve the traditional nuclear family. Two recent changes have included an increase in the Child Tax Credit to $2,500, as well as “Trump Accounts” – an investment vehicle that was made available for American children and launched with a $1,000 per child contribution from the government.

The proposed revision would allow eligible families to receive about $9,000 per child per year. Parents would not have to use the money to pay an outside child care provider; instead, the proposal would allow a parent to receive assistance for caring for his or her own child.

Saturday’s New York Times published an excerpt it had obtained from the actual draft of the proposal, in which the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families said, “[The proposal] creates the option for a new category of care, parent-based child care, that will allow one married parent to receive CCDF assistance to care for their own child, while a spouse works at least 35 hours per week.”

Under the new proposal, eligible married parents would also have to demonstrate their family income is lower than 85 percent of their state’s median income.

A recent analysis has determined that mothers and fathers spend, on average, nearly $17,000 per child, per year. This includes the cost of housing, food, clothes, health care, etc. Of course, that figure can vary widely based on where the child is being raised and decisions made by the mom and dad.

At the root of the drafted proposal is a fundamental flaw with the current CCDF program. Whether intentionally or not, the government is favoring families where both parents are working outside the home – an issue that Vice President JD Vance has insisted must be addressed.

“Federal policy should not be forcing one particular family model,” said the vice president, who has also been critical of so-called universal child care, which is a public system that would use taxpayer money to pay for taking care of children. Vice President Vance has called that “a massive subsidy to the lifestyle preferences of the affluent over the preferences of the middle and working class.”

Back in 2021 as a senator, Vance was blunt in his opposition, suggesting, “It turns out that normal Americans care more about their families than their jobs, and want a family policy that doesn’t shunt their kids into crap daycare so they can enjoy more ‘freedom’ in the paid labor force.”

Rather than an expansion of the current $12 billion Child Care and Development Fund, the drafted proposal would reportedly be budget neutral and reallocate funds in a way to comport with new eligibility rules. This would effectively mean some families who are currently receiving the subsidy would no longer be entitled to it.

Critics of the proposed change are not only objecting to that shift but also questioning whether a government program can legally tie marriage to eligibility. Daycare providers are also objecting. The New York Times story quotes Krystal Gastineau, who owns a childcare facility in Colorado, and who says half of her clients receive the federal subsidy. Her objection, though, is telling.

“If they could, I think parents would choose to take the money and stay home,” she said. “That would take away a major source of income.”

It would be impossible to overstate the many benefits a child receives from growing up with a stay-at-home mother in the home. Studies have confirmed that it’s an ideal arrangement and that boys and girls need their mothers to emotionally thrive during those early years of development. As a ministry, Focus on the Family has long acknowledged that it may not always be possible – but has nevertheless encouraged mothers and fathers to prayerfully and creatively navigate those challenges.

Focus on the Family applauds policy efforts to prioritize and incentivize the nuclear family. Please join us in praying for this effort and for an outcome that will encourage and best serve married mothers and fathers.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.