or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 5

post #81 of 792

  If a family needs help, lets help them!   


Edited by glorysmom - 5/28/11 at 12:11am
post #82 of 792



As someone who has been working at the same daycare for the last 2.5 years I can say that this account is 100% accurate, and exactly the reason I put in my 2 week notice yesterday. I tried and tried to get our owner/director to do the right things for our center, we did have an amazing infant room when a friend and I worked in there together, but she left cause of all the crud there and I got moved to kitchen duty. Now I get to do dishes while I hear the babies being made to scream themselves to sleep and listen to the *girls* that are "taking care" of them talking about how gross the breastmilk is that they have to reheat for the babies who are lucky enough to be b'fed. IT SUCKS and goes against everyything I believe in. I am getting far more welfare through childcare subsidies and foodstamps than it would take to let me stay home with my kids. Most of us don't ask for this life. I was married for 10 years and had 5 kids with my husband thinking we would be together ad I would be able to stay home with them. Thank goodness the help we do get is there...what I really really need is to be able to focus on school(working and going to school is near impossible for me, five kids, no sleep, etc I have no clue how people do it.) so that I can support hese 5 kids. Child support is not something I get to count on(which I think is a HUGE part of our "welfare" problems...these noncustodial parents are getting away with not caring for their kids, my X is ordered to pay about $500 a month...for *5* kids, I have friends whose Xs are ordered to pay $50 a month! It is crazy. Not to mention the fact that nothing happens to him when he just chooses to not pay when changing jobs and garnishment hasn't started yet). When we start placing value on the important things in life, our society will blossom. I just hope it happens in my lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy View Post





I'm sorry that you are disgusted and offended. I realize that many people don't have a choice. I have been there. I had to put my 9 month old in daycare because I came home and found Grandma sound asleep while he was unrestrained in a bouncy seat that he was too big for in the first place, on top of a piece of furniture. I also discovered that she had been putting him in his booster seat that was meant for eating at the table, and sliding it from room to room to keep him stationary while she sewed, cleaned her house, etc. I felt at that point that daycare was the lesser evil. However that didn't change my feelings about it. However, I was a single parent. I had to work. there was no fall back system for me, so I put him in daycare, and he cried, and I cried, and that was just the way it was.

 

I have worked in MANY childcare settings, as an aide and later as a preschool teacher. I've worked in three states and in another country and I've done in home daycare. I am not saying that all daycare is evil, and certainly most daycare teachers care about the kids, but there is no possible way to meet all the kids' physical AND emotional needs and keep them challenged and engaged. You need supplies, materials, sufficient adult presence, creativity, patience, space, money...it's a long list, to do it right. And no matter how thoroughly you investigate the childcare facility, there is NO way to know all that goes on. They will tell you that they have a certain ratio. What they will never, ever tell you is that in order to maintain ratios, they shuffle kids from room to room all day. And it's always the youngest kids, the ones who can't talk. So while you are thinking your 2 year old is having a blast doing arts and crafts (and that's what his pre-filled-out "Today I Did...." sheet says) he actually spent naptime and most of his afternoon in the infant room, where they put him in an exersaucer so he wouldn't step on the babies. When an infant teacher wants to go to lunch, to keep ratio, 4 babies have to get shuffled around. The two oldest are going into the toddler room, where walking, hair-grabbing one year olds are all over them, while the little ones sit in carseats in the director's office. This happens all the time. I used to work at a Goddard School, where parents pay half their salary for quality infant care, and although it was the cleanest and safest daycare I've worked at, the kids were no happier. And the babies still were left to CIO no matter what the parent requested, and they still trash talked the parents and other staff behind their backs.

 

So yes, I consider it warehousing. I think part time daycare, a few hrs a week or whatever, can be beneficial for everyone, and I know that there are places where they care aout the kids. I don't think daycares are inhumanely cruel places of confinement or something. But when you have 4-15 kids to an adult, staying in basically one or two rooms all day with a little time in a fenced in, controlled outdoor environment, for 45-50 hours a week, which is what I was referring to, then yes, imo that is warehousing. I can't think of a single room in my house that would entertain my kids for 10 hrs a day. And I'm told we have a lot of fun stuff.....playdough, paints, art/craft supplies, puzzles, legos, etc. We'd go stir crazy!

 

Whenever I worked in childcare and it would get to be 4:45 or so, I'd start thinking "I'm really ready to get out of here now." And then I would think about the kids I was watching who still had another hour to go.

 

And again, I am NOT judging those who need to put their children in daycare. I have a friend who keeps her twin girls in daycare 50 hrs a week even though she only works 20, because she has serious mental health struggles, and she just cannot cope with them. She feels bad about it, and I encourage her NOT to, because that is what she, personally, has to do, to keep things going and maintain her sanity, and provide her kids with emotional stability. And there are many moms out there who *need* to work whether for financial reasons or sanity reasons, and I have been there, so my comment was not meant to insult those families. I'm just stating the honest fact that it's not ideal. The kind of daycare a mom will get when her other choice is welfare, is 9 times out of 10, going to be warehouse variety.  That's a fact.



 

post #83 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy View Post
I have worked in MANY childcare settings, as an aide and later as a preschool teacher. I've worked in three states and in another country and I've done in home daycare. I am not saying that all daycare is evil, and certainly most daycare teachers care about the kids, but there is no possible way to meet all the kids' physical AND emotional needs and keep them challenged and engaged. You need supplies, materials, sufficient adult presence, creativity, patience, space, money...it's a long list, to do it right. And no matter how thoroughly you investigate the childcare facility, there is NO way to know all that goes on. They will tell you that they have a certain ratio. What they will never, ever tell you is that in order to maintain ratios, they shuffle kids from room to room all day. And it's always the youngest kids, the ones who can't talk. So while you are thinking your 2 year old is having a blast doing arts and crafts (and that's what his pre-filled-out "Today I Did...." sheet says) he actually spent naptime and most of his afternoon in the infant room, where they put him in an exersaucer so he wouldn't step on the babies. When an infant teacher wants to go to lunch, to keep ratio, 4 babies have to get shuffled around. The two oldest are going into the toddler room, where walking, hair-grabbing one year olds are all over them, while the little ones sit in carseats in the director's office. This happens all the time. I used to work at a Goddard School, where parents pay half their salary for quality infant care, and although it was the cleanest and safest daycare I've worked at, the kids were no happier. And the babies still were left to CIO no matter what the parent requested, and they still trash talked the parents and other staff behind their backs.

 

So yes, I consider it warehousing. I think part time daycare, a few hrs a week or whatever, can be beneficial for everyone, and I know that there are places where they care aout the kids. I don't think daycares are inhumanely cruel places of confinement or something. But when you have 4-15 kids to an adult, staying in basically one or two rooms all day with a little time in a fenced in, controlled outdoor environment, for 45-50 hours a week, which is what I was referring to, then yes, imo that is warehousing. I can't think of a single room in my house that would entertain my kids for 10 hrs a day. And I'm told we have a lot of fun stuff.....playdough, paints, art/craft supplies, puzzles, legos, etc. We'd go stir crazy!

 

I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.

 

Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.
 

 

post #84 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polliwog View Post



I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.

 

Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.
 

 


I'm going to agree with Polliwog.  My ds is in daycare about 40-45hours per week.  It's a wonderful program.  He is always in the same room (I've showed up to pick him at various times of the day and he's never anywhere else, unless its his classes turn to do "Kung Fu"), and his school has "floaters" who go from room to room when its the teachers break time, or who cover while the teacher is in the bathroom with one of the children. 

 

The children certainly aren't Warehoused during the day.

 

post #85 of 792

I think some childcare is warehousing and some isn't.  I have seen both - I bet most of us have.  

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 5/29/11 at 2:46pm
post #86 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polliwog View Post



I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.

 

Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.
 

 



No, actually I've worked at three centers that were NAEYC accredited...4 or 5 stars. Although they accepted government subsidy, the location and the price (because subsidy only covers a certain amount) meant that most of the children had fairly wealthy parents....doctors, investors, lawyers, etc.

 

I too have seen directors who pitch in where necessary, and  as a lead teacher I used to plan activities for those last two hours, to keep the kids entertained and get their minds off the kids who were already being picked up. I also worked with parents on potty training. But I have worked, as I mentioned, in THREE states, and in another country, and I can say that while there are good daycares out there they are the exception, not the norm. Perhaps you were lucky enough to see the good side of the child care industry. That's wonderful. But it is not condescending to state the truth which is that most parents who are using government subsidized childcare  as an alternative to welfare, which is who we are talking about in this thread, are going to end up with poor quality childcare for their kids. I'm not being condescending. I hate it. I think it's wrong. I think every mom should have te opportunity to stay home, but if she chooses not to, she should not have to feel bad about her child being in childcare, because it should be a delightful experience for the child. But this is not the way it is. I have been on the inside of at least 4 Kindercares in my city alone. I wouldn't take my child toany of them. Nor to the Goddard School, nor to Childtime or any Knowledge Learning Corp owned childcare facility. These are big names. Many people trust them because they have security systems on their doors, and a policy manual three inches thick, and bright sunny classrooms. They look nice, and they feed the kids, and they have nice outdoor equipment. I'm just saying that it is not all it's cracked up to be and I can almost guarantee that any daycare you find, I will be able to find a problem with it in two days. Or maybe I just have impossibly high standards. :shrug oh well.

post #87 of 792

Actually, in the work that I've done (in three states,) I've been in hundreds of child care centers at various points in the day (quite often announced.) A good percentage of programs that accept government subsidy are wonderful. Better than the average private pay family can afford. Not all, of course, or even most, but a big percentage. I've also been an NAEYC accreditation program validator. While the new accreditation program has it's drawbacks, it is MUCH harder for low-quality programs to become accredited, and maintain their accreditation status.

 

Some of the highest quality early childhood programs in the country are just for our nation's poorest children. My kids were lucky enough to qualify for, and attend, Early Head Start (for children ages 0-3) and Head Start (for children 3-5.) My kids qualified because they were in foster care and had significant risk factors. I never would have been able to afford those programs if I had to pay..

post #88 of 792

Just to answer the OP...

 

My mom got foodstamps and probably some sorts of other welfare, to stay home with me and my brother until I was 4 and my brother was 2.  At that point her good friend who ran a Montessori school would let us in (she didn't normally let 2 year olds in, as she didn't run a daycare, but my brother has always been brilliant and ahead of everyone, and it wasn't daycare for him, but school, even at that age), and let my mom clean the school for partial tuition, so my mom went back to work. 

 

I am eternally grateful that she got to spend that time with us, and that we got to spend that time with her.  I think that it allowed us all to be a lot more normal than we otherwise would have been, as our home life was absolutely out of control otherwise, thanks to my father. 

 

My mom was horribly embarrassed countless times for using foodstamps, and actually never set foot in a certain Safeway again thanks to how the cashiers treated her (it's possible she never set foot in ANY Safeway again), but she did it because she felt it was just that important, to be with us.

post #89 of 792



But EHS and HS are not for profit agencies. THere is a huge difference. The EHS program here (to use as a daycare, HS is preschool and is free) costs money. DSHS will pay if you are working, but if you are going to school for longer than a year or notin a technical program they don't help with childcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polliwog View Post

Actually, in the work that I've done (in three states,) I've been in hundreds of child care centers at various points in the day (quite often announced.) A good percentage of programs that accept government subsidy are wonderful. Better than the average private pay family can afford. Not all, of course, or even most, but a big percentage. I've also been an NAEYC accreditation program validator. While the new accreditation program has it's drawbacks, it is MUCH harder for low-quality programs to become accredited, and maintain their accreditation status.

 

Some of the highest quality early childhood programs in the country are just for our nation's poorest children. My kids were lucky enough to qualify for, and attend, Early Head Start (for children ages 0-3) and Head Start (for children 3-5.) My kids qualified because they were in foster care and had significant risk factors. I never would have been able to afford those programs if I had to pay..



 

post #90 of 792

can we next start a poll about the inverse proportion between IQ and use of the term "welfare mom?" 

post #91 of 792

To answer the OP since I haven't read all the post yet. 

 

I think welfare is highly over used and abused. It does need an overhaul of some sorts. Just as I think if a person gets pregnant they should not be going to welfare in order stay home. I am all for a parent staying home however when one chooses to have sex they chose to have a risk of having a child and therefore be prepared without assistance to support said child. If that means not being able to stay home so be it. I am in favor of better maternity leave programs maybe not for a full year but close to it. Not only that our government can't afford it in our current state that it is in. 

 

Assistance should be a last resort type thing if that means going without things like TV, Internet, cell phone in order to provide for the family so be it. But government assistance should not be a first step thing in helping. Its there for a reason and are great programs when used the way they are meant to be used. But society has made it to where welfare and like programs are a first line choice for many then what the programs were originally designed for. 

I am all for helping people when help is needed. But sadly the programs are so highly abused that its hard for the ones that truly need the help to get it. 

Most people can survive off of one income if they chose to, however most people are not willing to make those changes in their lifestyles to do so. 

 

 

post #92 of 792

When it comes to funding, there is absolutely no difference between Early Head Start and Head Start. Nothing. The federal government pays for a six hour day (for full time Head Start or Early Head Start center-based programming.) Some EHS and HS programs offer wrap-around child care for families who need more than six hours of school. Those are what families pay for, not the six hours that EHS/HS pays for. Both EHS and HS can offer extended care.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post



But EHS and HS are not for profit agencies. THere is a huge difference. The EHS program here (to use as a daycare, HS is preschool and is free) costs money. DSHS will pay if you are working, but if you are going to school for longer than a year or notin a technical program they don't help with childcare.



 



 

post #93 of 792

We have drawn some sort of assistance for a good part of the past eleven years since dd1 was born. We've also always had at least one parent bringing in an income. It was just dh until about a year and a half ago. Then the job market really went downhill for him nearly two years ago. and he was unemployed for about a year. During this time he drew unemployment and, of course, our food stamps were increased. We continued to qualify for the girls' Medicaid, which they've gotten for years; dh and I also get a 100 percent discount at a hospital in the area for any medical care we need.

 

A little over a year ago, I was blessed to get hired on with a company that pays me to work from home, giving telephone English lessons. This is great work for me because it enables me to spend time with my family when I have breaks between lessons. A few months later, dh also got a work-from-home job working opposite hours from me but it was very stressful for him, both emotionally and health-wise. He has some serious and chronic health issues, and, this past February, he had his second TIA and had to be hospitalized for a couple of days.

 

Of course, I still needed to give lessons during this time, even though I was the only adult in the home; we couldn't afford for me not to (it was just for one day since the first day he was in the hospital was my day off). I just had to keep checking in on the girls during my breaks between lessons; this meant it took me a little longer than usual to get all my reports sent in, but it was manageable. I'm so thankful that, with all dh's health issues (and this isn't the first time he's been hospitalized, just the first time since I'd started working) -- I'm really thankful that I'm able to work from home, and that I have the flexibility to set my own hours so that I can be as available to the girls as I need to be, at any time when dh might not be able to be here due to his medical issues.

 

Dh did try to resume his job a few days after returning from the hospital, but, after just a few hours, he had a terrible headache and was having a very hard time concentrating. I encouraged him to go ahead and quit and just focus on the girls and his health, and I expanded my availabilities for lessons. I currently get about 32 to 35 hours a week of lessons with about 46 hours a week of availability (the job is classified as part-time permanent so the system blocks me from getting full-time hours). The pay is good enough that I think it's equal to or greater than the pay of any 40 hr/wk  job I'd be likely to get outside the home. Plus, me working outside the home just wouldn't be a good option for us.

 

So...we get food stamps, children's Medicaid, and adult hospital discounts. We also have high speed Internet access. I need it for my job,but we actually had it before I got this job. I honestly can't imagine being low income without having Internet access. We find out about so many wonderful things being given away. Dh sometimes picks up a little extra cash when people are getting rid of stuff like old refrigerators and washers. They post about it on places like Craig's list, and it's so much nicer (and more engergy efficient and eco friendly) to drive to where you know there is something than just drive around hoping you'll find something. He uses his dolly to load the old appliances into our minivan (he takes the back seats out) and hauls the stuff to the metal run. Every little bit helps.

 

He just picked up a very new-looking couch in a beautiful floral print from an older lady who has too many back problems to sit in it anymore. So we have a nice couch now. Of course, I'm sorry if anyone's working 12 hour shifts and coming home to a crappy couch -- still, if you have Internet, you have a wonderful opportunity to find out about nice things you can avail yourself of for free or at very low cost. So I wouldn't begrudge poor people their Internet. We can (and do) certainly manage fine without Cable, but Internet, I think, has practically become essential in this day and age. Not to mention it makes it so much easier for dh to fax in any updates he needs to send to our caseworker.

 

Oh, and, yes, I think it's good to provide economically-challenged families with support so that all children can have a parent with them at all times.

 

 

post #94 of 792

I do believe that being a SAHM is very beneficial to children.
And you can make it work without going on welfare, I've seen online forums of single mothers who not only stayed at home until their children were school aged, but also home schooled them.

I pretty much am against big government, and that includes welfare.
I'm a big believer in private charities, but that's just me.

post #95 of 792

I am a "welfare mom". I get foodstamps, cash assistance (used to be called TANF, now called CALWorks in my state), and medical for me, my partner, and my son.

 

Both my partner and I have been looking for work, but it has not been forthcoming. I am in grad school, which counts towards the "work requirement" of CALWorks. They expect me to be training or working 32 hours a week, while my partner gets to be the SAHD- he got an exemption because our son is so young. If my son were 5, it would be a different story. And of course, we only get 60 months of cash assistance, period.

 

We get cash that is $300 less than our monthly rent. We also have $200 car insurance, $175 mobile phone bills, $60 internet (a must for a grad student), and (?) non-food items we shop for. We only get food with WIC and foodstamps- so we must be careful to plan carefully so we do not go hungry at the end of the month.

 

I would LOVE for one of us to have a FT job and provide benefits for our family. But the economy being what it is, I don't know when that will happen. It seems like we are always hustling, trying to make up that additional $600 in the budget that we have no job for. We are constantly stressed out and fighting. It sucks.

 

Welfare moms are warriors.

post #96 of 792


Our HS programs here are about 3.5 hours long. It is from 8:15 to 11:30 or 12:15 to 3:30. That's it. When I went to get my youngest enrolled in EHS I would have had to pay for anything outside of the "regularly scheduled class times". There was not a free 6 hour time frame, and dshs will not pay for childcare if I am only in school. The head Start near my house only offers the preschool program that I explained above. I think there must be some variation from state to state maybe?   
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polliwog View Post

When it comes to funding, there is absolutely no difference between Early Head Start and Head Start. Nothing. The federal government pays for a six hour day (for full time Head Start or Early Head Start center-based programming.) Some EHS and HS programs offer wrap-around child care for families who need more than six hours of school. Those are what families pay for, not the six hours that EHS/HS pays for. Both EHS and HS can offer extended care.
 



 



 

post #97 of 792

I believe that the welfare system is heavily abused. I know first hand since I had a close friend who got pregnant on purpose with no med. insurance or a dime to her name and had that baby on MY tax dollars and then didn't get a job for a year purposely because she got the state to pay her to stay home while getting free medical, free housing, foodstamps, formula and all the other things the ''takers'' in society get for free while we work to pay their way. UGH!!! I think if people need to assistance while times are tough, fine, but be prepared to pay it back. That's only fair, right? If you want a car, you have to pay for it, if you want to own a home, you have to pay for it, I am so sick on the entitlement mentality in this country. I am fortunate enough to be a SAHM but my DH and I both went to college, that us and our parents paid for, not that govt, and own a nice home that WE paid for and the nice things that we worked super hard to have. We had children when we were financially able to. We have 2 kids and only 2 kids because that's what we can afford. It's called being accountable and responsible. We are the MAKERS.

post #98 of 792

To use your terminology, every mother is a 'maker'. Mothering is work. Getting pregnant, giving birth, caring for a child-hardly an easy way to get welfare. There are many easier ways to earn a living.

Even if your friends intentions were dishonest, that makes her dishonest, but it doesnt make her a parasite, or any more a 'taker' than any person who benefits from tax payers, you included.

 

There may be those you abuse the system, ive never met one, but the system abuses them disproportionately.

post #99 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

I believe that the welfare system is heavily abused. I know first hand since I had a close friend who got pregnant on purpose with no med. insurance or a dime to her name and had that baby on MY tax dollars and then didn't get a job for a year purposely because she got the state to pay her to stay home while getting free medical, free housing, foodstamps, formula and all the other things the ''takers'' in society get for free while we work to pay their way. UGH!!! I think if people need to assistance while times are tough, fine, but be prepared to pay it back. That's only fair, right? If you want a car, you have to pay for it, if you want to own a home, you have to pay for it, I am so sick on the entitlement mentality in this country. I am fortunate enough to be a SAHM but my DH and I both went to college, that us and our parents paid for, not that govt, and own a nice home that WE paid for and the nice things that we worked super hard to have. We had children when we were financially able to. We have 2 kids and only 2 kids because that's what we can afford. It's called being accountable and responsible. We are the MAKERS.


 

This isn't judgmental at all.  eyesroll.gif  Seriously, how do your tax dollars, as a SAHM, pay for your friend's welfare any more than her own tax dollars did before she had that baby?  WTF is the makers vs. the takers? 

post #100 of 792

I have read through a few posts and this is my take on the situation. I was married for 6 years and while I was married I had 2 children. Needless to say my marriage ended and I was left flat on my back. I had no education, no job skills, no car, no money, nothing. I was in that situation because it was decided that I would be a SAHM until my children were school aged and even if I was working I wouldn't make enough to cover childcare. After my marriage ended I fell in love with the most amazing woman I know and because we live in a state where we don't have equal rights I am not entitled to things like insurance through her employer. Anyway, she is one of the hardest working people I know and we still weren't making ends meet. We were living in a hotel working scuzzy jobs telemarketing and didn't have a gallon of milk in our fridge. I did what I had to a filed for foodstamps and medicaid. This was a lifesaver. It's been about 1 1/2 years and I am needing to renew my applicaiton actually. I'm not proud that I am on state assistance, but I have to do what I have to do. I don't work because childcare cost upwards of $1200 a month. I don't think I am using the system though. I have these children from a previous relationship that at the time I could afford. My partner and I are both full-time students, she works a full-time job, we coupon and shop second-hand.We are trying to make it and no matter how hard we try we aren't cutting it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?