Should a family with an educated mother and a father attending graduate school be entitled to welfare payments so that the mother can remain home with the children? A reader says she knows such families and asks for my opinion. My answer: No. The mother should go to work temporarily or the family should live with relatives. Here is our exchange.

Intensely Curious writes:

I, like you, believe that families need their mothers to stay home and be the prime homemaker, making the family home a place of solitude, serenity and a warm environment in which everyone in the family can thrive. When voicing this opinion, which is not the smartest thing to do, I often hear things like, “Children need to know the value of the dollar,” and “Children need to see a good role model,” etc. Those responses are usually given in regards to situations similar to the one I’m about to share with you.

First let me mention that there are many families on welfare that have a stay-at-home mother. The reasoning behind their situations are likely to be different than the one I’m about to give you. But let me know whether you think having a stay-at-home mother is detrimental to the children’s future if this was the situation.

The father is completing his work through attending school full-time to become a professional (PA, Optometrist, Pharmacist, etc.); his family will need to live off school loans so he can devote all his time to earning the grades he needs to get into professional school while taking the heavy course loads each semester. It’s stressful, but he sees the light at the end of the tunnel so to speak.

His wife has a good degree but opts to stay at home to raise their children because she would be working just to pay for daycare (and also for all the reasons she believes in staying home raising with her children). They both know that although they receive food stamps and government assistance with housing, it’ll be until her husband finishes school in 6+ years, after which he’ll be working in the job force to support his family. Until then, she is raising, teaching and loving her children letting them know daily that education is the path to freedom….especially financial freedom. And, they are seeing and experiencing it first-hand. She’s making the best of what they got.

 So with that situation, do you believe that the wife should use her little degree to find a mediocre job away from her family just to afford day care and come home to the stresses (she likely won’t get paid enough to get off assistance I’m assuming and if so they will barely be making it since they wouldn’t have any help at all) that her already poor family leads? Some more of my perspective on this matter is that I think staying home with the children even on food stamps will aid in starting a positive emotional, mental and physical environment for the children in their “molding” years; a time when many lifelong consequences can occur if not treated positively. This negative environment is especially acute in people that need the welfare to begin with (for different and many reasons). I think staying home with the children can lessen the likelihood (or at least significantly diminish) the many disadvantages that a child growing up in a poor and working mother’s home can cause, especially when they start school.

It’s a horrid cycle. I may be wrong, or not seeing other views, and I know my thinking in this matter is controversial at best, “ridiculous” at worst. Please tell me your stance on this (controversial) issue. Thanks so much for your time!

 Laura writes:

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was an offshoot of what was originally known as Aid to Dependent Children and before that as “mothers’ pensions.”  Between 1911 and 1913, most of the states passed some form of mothers’ pension laws that gave government assistance to widows and married mothers whose husbands were physically incapacitated. Initial supporters of these laws were adamant that these grants be denied to unmarried mothers or mothers who were drunks or promiscuous. As we all know, once these grants were embodied in federal legislation, standards were loosened, with grants eventually going to unmarried mothers. The results were disastrous.

I believe in the original standards of the mothers’ pension laws. They were meant to keep children out of orphanages and foster homes. In rare cases, divorced mothers were considered eligible.

While I sympathize with any family trying to keep to traditional sex roles, I don’t think the situation described by Intensely Curious warrants government assistance. It is difficult, but a mother can go to work for a few years if she must and still preserve her family. The important thing is her priorities. Obviously she will not be living for her career and will be able to still devote a big part of herself to her children. She can make up for lost time with her children later. It’s not ideal, but I don’t think this temporary arrangement is a disaster for children until a husband gets on his feet.

A father in school often has some extra hours to help out with child care. Also, families can turn to relatives for cheap housing. It’s hard to imagine any family in this situation for six years. Most graduate degrees don’t take that long and many allow for part-time work.

If a family in these circumstances receives government aid, what justification is there for denying it to a whole host of families who cannot for whatever reason afford to have a mother at home? Government money is better spent in family-friendly tax policy. The child tax deduction, now $3,650, should be at least $10,000 to bring it up to what it was in the 1950s, when half of all married couples paid no income tax. The dependent care tax credit, which applies only to paid daycare, is an outrage to families who care for their own children and should be broadened to include care of children in their own homes. But the government can’t possibly afford to subsidize young families with fathers in graduate school, except perhaps by offering them extra tax advantages.

                                      —– Comments ———

Kimberly writes:

I don’t know anything about the way welfare works, but I am outraged to hear that there is a tax for paid childcare. So feminist! But I do have one question about this particular couple. How old is the youngest child? [Laura writes: I think the reader was referring to a number of families on welfare.] The studies done on children have shown that the first three years of development are crucial. It seems that there are so few women staying at home to nurse and “baby” their babies, and so it would be a shame for one who is willing to do so to count on making up lost time just because she’s educated. I think I’d rather pay taxes for her to stay home and nurture her little babies so they will be well-behaved children, and better adults. There is no substitute for a mother to her baby. Fathers can absolutely help enormously, and maybe other close relatives. But especially in a breastfeeding relationship, a baby wants Mother.

I am on Medicaid right now for health care, but we are about to get insured through my husband’s job next month at no cost to us. We are not on food stamps or housing assistance. I am not educated, and I don’t think I could have even made enough to cover daycare, no matter how good at waiting tables I got! So, like your commenter mentioned, I have a different situation than this one. I have two “babies,” and I’m nursing my 13-month-old. It can be quite exhausting. I really couldn’t possibly work, not even ten hours at another job, while breastfeeding during this stage of night nursing. I’d have to wean him, and I would risk increasing my chances for pregnancy if I did that by a lot. I use the non-systematic form of Natural Family Planning called “Ecological Breastfeeding,” a long-lost art to Western society that was rediscovered and taught to me by Sheila Kippley.

Each baby is different and totally unpredictable, so if a mother is going to dedicate herself to breastfeeding, she has to remain with her baby. I simply cannot work.

Intensely Curious writes:

I’m not going to lie. I was hoping you had a different perspective, but I must disagree. I think the mother on welfare working actually would be detrimental to the child. Living with relatives is not feasible in some cases, but if it was, I am definitely for it. I believe nothing can replace a mother’s role to her newborn/infant baby. If being on welfare means this baby is raised by the person that brought them into this world, then I believe it is definitely justified. A family like I mentioned isn’t like other families on (and even some off welfare). They are actually wanting to better themselves. They are looking to get out of the situation they are unfortunately in.

In response to Kimberly, I without a doubt agree! Breastfeeding a baby is hard work and not for the weak. If a mom on welfare chooses to place a priority on her family and thus stays at home to raise her children, there should be no reason why breastfeeding her infant for at least a year shouldn’t occur. It’s best for the baby (no matter how inconvenient it is for the mother) and that is the whole reason why she chooses to be at home: It’s best for her family.

In the family example given, six plus years refers to the two years of undergraduate/pre-req. work + the three or four years of professional work. It seems like a long time, but scientists constantly reveal the prominence those crucial first years are in the development of children’s emotional, mental, and psychological health.

Laura writes:

I agree with Kimberly and Intensely on the importance of those first years and think a couple in this situation should try to make it possible for the mother to be with her children. I think most couples can manage with help from family and both the mother and father working part-time jobs. It is still possible to breastfeed if a mother is working part-time. I don’t know enough about the existing qualifications for welfare and whether such couples qualify for welfare in many states. But it seems to support such couples leaves room for abuse by others who are not so hard-working and who do not have the best interests of their children at heart.

Karen I. writes:

There is a different kind of welfare mother in my State. They are the “poor single moms,” women who shack up with their baby’s employed father while collecting all the welfare benefits of women who are truly single. I know this because they brag about what they get! The benefit package is impressive: state insurance for them and the child(ren) with very low or no copayments, WIC (formula and nutritious food), food stamps (hundreds a month), Head Start, Care for Kids (free daycare), rental assistance and cash assistance, again hundreds a month. The very few who are motivated also get a free ride for two years of community college or other training of their choice. The full benefit package runs for two years, after which time they must get some training to extend the benefits, unless they have another child, which is usually the route they take. While the State pays for everything, the “poor mom” gets money from the father and the couple saves up for things like a nice house, if they don’t already have one in the father’s name. They also often save up for a big wedding, so the bride can have her dream day when the State gravy train finally ends or the child gets old enough to go to school and they want to make things look good. These couples are shameless and look at married couples as suckers who were too stupid to take advantage of the system. Two of the fathers in situations like this even told me to my face that they had told the mothers “to get everything she could out of the state!” It is sickening to say the least, but you know what? When I think of how hard we had it when the kids were little, I wonder sometimes if they aren’t right about us being stupid. We had a tiny wedding, lived in a box of an apartment and struggled to pay copayments for two very sickly children. The system is so stacked against those of use who try to do things the right way that we would have been better off financially if we had divorced and shacked up. I really don’t understand why there is not a lot of outrage about this.  

Laura writes:

Those early crusaders for “mothers’ pensions” were right. They believed government support should never go to unmarried mothers, only to widows. 

This makes me wonder about the couples Intensely Curious mentioned. Are they married?

Tracie C. writes:

Welfare is not designed to support a family where the father is capable of working but chooses instead to attend school full-time. That’s as much an abuse of the system as those provided by other commenters. 

But, of course, it just highlights the inherent destructiveness of government systems such as welfare. People begin to justify their use of taxpayer money for all kind of reasons … even for something as ridiculous as getting an advanced professional degree.

Sheila C. writes:

I’ve been reading the entries on mothers on public support with increasing disbelief. If I’m not misinterpreting them, the comments indicate a sense of entitlement based on theories of good parenting. While I vehemently condemn our government’s support of illegitimacy and sloth, I’ve never asked for nor expected a stipend for the choice of staying home with my children (I agree with your earlier posts, though, that if women left the workforce and tax policy were not so skewed, it would/should be possible for a family to live on a father’s salary alone). Yes, we had family financial help, but still we did not go out to eat, we did not go to movies, we did not take vacations, and we watched a 20 year old television set. 

 The comments remind me of the mother of my son’s football friend regarding her family’s financial troubles and her six children: “Well, they’re here now!” Certainly no one wants children to go hungry or truly needy, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Her attitude was that since she chose to have these children, despite being unable to easily afford them or the extras they wanted or even needed, it was now society’s responsibility to make up the difference. Same attitude I encountered a number of years ago when I volunteered, with my church small group, to cook dinner for our single local homeless shelter (not a shabby place, by the way). All these women had multiple children (and few had spouses) while my strong desire to have a second child was on indeterminate hold at the time due to our finances. I’ve mentioned before my regret at not having more than two based on what seemed like legitimate financial concerns at the time, and my thoughts on what is truly necessary have changed, but if you can’t afford them, don’t have them!

 This also applies to all those mothers who insist they “have to work” in order to afford their family and daycare, or women I know (or know of) who return to work and leave their children with grandparents. Your writers are discussing a choice to get an advanced education and a choice to have children and a choice to breastfeed (all of which I personally support, by the way) as automatically entitling them to others’ financial support. if you’ve have children, it is YOUR responsibility as parents to support them, not the taxpayers’. Yes, I sound like Scrooge, but the convoluted reasoning to reach a predetermined assumption based on personal circumstances equaling good public policy infuriates me. This self-justification is liberal at its heart, not pro-family or conservative at all.

Laura writes:

For a married woman in this situation, it is better to have a child and for both parents to work part-time and get help from family than postpone having children. The poverty is worth it.

Intensely Curious writes:

The couple(s) I refer to are married. In reference to Karen’s knowledge of certain couples, it is against the law (payable to a huge fine I think) of lying about living with a partner/husband and still be receiving government assistance. At least it is in my state.

And any husband who is going to professional school will eventually be paying much more in public taxes than most middle-class families that will further support others in the welfare situation that he too was in. 

Bottom line is a mother belongs in the home. Two parents working part-time equals one parent working full-time; that parent should be the father. In my opinion, if living on public assistance (temporarily) allows children to have the best possible start in life by allowing these natural responsibilities to take place, then they shouldn’t suffer while their father pursues his goals of becoming a prominent (taxpaying) member of society. He still is “working” so to speak; pursuing a professional degree takes a strong work ethic, intelligence, diligence and a focus that many careers don’t necessarily need or possess.

Our great-grandmothers raised 9 children in 2 bedroom “shoe-boxes” with little income by cooking healthy meals at home and making their own clothes. It is not worth not having children, I believe, due to financial concerns if help is possible and will-again-be temporary. The help and contribution will be payed back soon enough…and in the process, the married couple’s children will have been raised in a happy, healthy home by their mommy full-time. Being poor would be unknown to them due to being “rich” within their home life.

Just my opinion.

Laura writes: 

I am amazed these couples qualify for welfare in any state. It is possible for a man to go to graduate school and work a full-time job. Many have done it.

It is unfair to subsidize those in graduate school and not those who are starting their own businesses or those working in entry-level jobs that will eventually lead to well-paying positions. It makes no sense. The same argument as to their future tax earnings applies. The obligations of the state to young families seem potentially astronomical under this reasoning. This sort of government encroachment in family life is not worth it. It is never a gift, but comes with significant costs to individual freedom and family autonomy. 

Even in the most traditional societies, mothers sometimes have had to give up care of their children to help support their family. The effects of temporary care by strangers when occurring within a family that will soon have a full-time mother are not enough to justify government subsidies. I am not advocating that mothers of infants work. But if there is truly no alternative, short of welfare, it is necessary.

Karen I. writes:

There are supposed to be penalties for lying to the State, but the single moms I write about are not lying. They aren’t married and the mother doesn’t make any money! The fathers may be lying about where they live, but others are helping them to do so by signing fake rent receipts and so on. When a mother is living with the baby’s father, does anyone really believe the father is not living there too? That should be a red flag to the State but they just look the other way. What is needed is surprise home visits by the welfare agencies, to check compliance. 

I thought of a few more things the poor children of single moms get, including free lunch and often breakfast at school, free coats from the local newspaper charity, free filled backpacks from my Church at the start of school, free rides to and from doctors appointments if they need them with the State insurance, fee waivers to attend summer camp free or cheap at the YMCA and free transportation to and from that camp. Add that to what I already listed and try to convince some single young tramp with a baby on the way she ought to marry her baby daddy and get a job. Morals are not going to convince her because she does not have any or she would not be in that situation to begin with. She has no education to use at a job, so that argument is out the window, too. So, she has to choose between working at a low paying, miserable job and sitting home “poor” with all the State is just dying to hand her the minute the baby arrives. No wonder 40% of births are to single mothers these days. 

I used to be the first to give to the food pantry, the backpack drive, etc. After seeing who really benefits from these things, I don’t do that anymore. Now, if I want to give something, I hand it right to someone I know who can use it. I have given loads of brand name kid’s clothes to a mom whose husband had his work hours cut back. She appreciates it and I know it is going to someone who really deserves it. I think that everyone who wants to give to charity should do the same. Find someone who really deserves the help and help them yourself. Leave a bag of food, Christmas gifts or warm clothes on their doorstep if you think they will be embarrassed. You don’t need an agency to find needy folks for you. They are everywhere if you just open your eyes and look for them. Often it is the ones who are too proud to seek welfare that need the help the most.

Please follow and like us: