Growing fears about  鈥� and confusion over federal 鈥減ublic charge鈥� rules that can affect green card and visa applications 鈥� are prompting some California families to retreat from child care and early education programs, even when their children qualify.

Under federal immigration law, officials can deny green card and visa applications if they determine the applicant is likely to rely heavily on government assistance. Although many benefits cannot be considered for purposes of the 鈥減ublic charge鈥� rule, advocates say many families avoid social service programs altogether out of an abundance of caution.

 in November by the current administration would repeal a 2022 rule that advocates say provided significant clarity on when the rule applies. During the previous Trump administration, the government made  what could be considered 鈥減ublic charge.鈥� Even after those changes were rescinded, fears persist.

Advocates say the fear and confusion that are already impacting families could be far-reaching for a state like California, where it is estimated that nearly 1.1 million children have at least one parent who is undocumented, according to the . More than half of those children are U.S. citizens and over 250,000 under the age of 5.

鈥淲ith public charge there鈥檚 a level of anxiety around signing up for public benefit programs, submitting information, and/or scrutiny that may be increased and make people uncomfortable because of whatever the public rhetoric may be or the perception that it creates risk,鈥� said Stacy Lee, chief learning officer and senior managing director of early childhood at the nonprofit Children Now.

She noted that many child care providers are uniquely positioned to support families because they are not only aware of the impact of immigration raids, but many have also developed trust with immigrant families who might be confused about proposed policy changes.

While public charge does not apply to U.S. citizen children and affects only specific types of immigration cases, many families, including those with mixed citizenship status, still withdraw from public benefits programs out of fear that participation would jeopardize their residency or protection from deportation, advocates say.

鈥淓ven when I was representing clients as an immigration attorney and I would tell them 100% that I was sure they were not going to be affected, that their case was exempt from public charge, sometimes they just still wouldn鈥檛 [enroll in public programs] because the fear is so severe,鈥� said Liza Davis, advocacy director at The Children鈥檚 Partnership.

What is the current policy on 鈥榩ublic charge鈥�?

The  affirms that the public charge test is used only in specific immigration cases and does not apply to a  of people, including asylum seekers, U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants and lawful permanent residents applying for citizenship.

鈥淎 public charge only shows up when you are an individual that is submitting an application for a very specific form of relief, which a lot of people don鈥檛 qualify for,鈥� Davis confirmed.

Additionally, only  of certain benefit programs are considered.

Depending on a person鈥檚 specific immigration situation, cash assistance programs like CalWORKS could be considered for public charge tests. CalWORKs is California鈥檚 version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which many families rely on for benefits such as child care, stable access to food and other basic necessities, like diapers.

Davis encourages families to seek accurate information and assistance. She says concerns about public charge often spread by word-of-mouth among applicants who may be comparing cases without properly accounting for the complexity of the immigration system, which includes many different types of applications with varying rules.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not able to anticipate what will happen in a different administration, but if this need is absolutely essential for you and you qualify for it right now, then you should really consider taking the help because it鈥檚 so important to the well-being of the children in your household,鈥� Davis said she advises families.

Further exacerbating the issue is the lack of definitive certainty on whether and when rules related to public charge may change.

鈥淧ublic charge has just been historically weaponized,鈥� and different federal administrations have either made or proposed changes, leaving a sense of instability,鈥� said Davis. 鈥淭he ebb and flow, the unknown of it, and the fact that we can鈥檛 say 鈥榯his is not going to change鈥� 鈥� there is no guarantee.鈥�

How child care providers can support immigrant families with young children

Lee from Children Now says that home-visiting programs, which provide parenting support in a young child鈥檚 home, are one way to keep families accurately informed about anticipated changes to their benefits and how they can remain connected to social services.

鈥淭he standout has been families who have access to home visiting have someone they can trust, that they can ask questions to,鈥� Lee said. 鈥淭hey can talk to their home visitor, who can explain to them what鈥檚 going on, what鈥檚 real, what鈥檚 not real. It鈥檚 hard to navigate what鈥檚 actually happening versus what鈥檚 just a lot of aggressive words or what鈥檚 being held up in courts.鈥�

In 2025, about 18,200 children from over 17,000 families in California received home visiting services, according to the . It is estimated that nearly 2.6 million children from nearly 2 million families in the state would benefit from home visiting services.

What is the latest proposed change?

The latest proposed change would mostly repeal the 2022 rule clarifying when public charge applies, but does not offer regulations to replace existing rules. Advocates argue that the lack of clarity can lead families to disenroll or avoid eligible public benefits.

The administration acknowledges that changes to public charge rules between 2019 and 2022, 鈥渉eightened fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, such as health coverage and care.鈥�

The current proposal, filed by former Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, also recognizes the far-reaching impact of families withdrawing from public services out of fear. 鈥淒HS has determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS continues to believe that the benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family.鈥�

The board unanimously last month 鈥� and now the district is putting together a preliminary plan, with a deadline of February, 2026 to produce a package of new parental benefits.

Board Member , who represents , which includes neighborhoods such as South L.A., Watts and San Pedro, is the sponsor and a co-author of the resolution.

She said it鈥檚 about time the nation鈥檚 second-largest district treats its workforce of more than 70,000 employees, including thousands of working moms like her, more fairly.

鈥淧arents are spending the vast majority of their paycheck on rent and childcare, and a little bit left over for food and gas and other bills,鈥� said Ortiz-Franklin, a former LAUSD teacher who has two young children. 鈥淚t’s really affecting people’s livelihood.鈥�

The resolution, which was co-sponsored by board members Karla Griego and Kelly Gonez, includes provisions for the district to support family planning, pregnancy, parental leave and childcare. 

The district is beginning with a demographic study to determine which employees have families, or are planning to, and identify areas of need. The study will also assess the costs of expanding leave for new parents.

The district has contracts with unions that govern pay and benefits for its employees and is  currently negotiating a new contract with the city鈥檚 teachers union, which is also for parents.

Ortiz-Franklin said new parents who work for L.A. Unified currently face an impossible choice: pay for childcare for their family or pay other household expenses. The cost of high-quality childcare in L.A., she said, exceeds the income of many LAUSD employees.

She said teachers and other LAUSD workers are ineligible for the state鈥檚 disability insurance program, which offers partially paid leave of up to 16 weeks for new parents. Teachers and other LAUSD employees are exempt from the state鈥檚 family leave programs because the district鈥檚 benefits programs predated those of the state. 

Often, Ortiz-Franklin said, district employees have to use their limited sick days to take parental leave, leading many teachers and other school staffers to time their pregnancies so they give birth during the summer months, when they are off anyway.

In addition to calling for leave for pregnant employees, the resolution also calls on LAUSD to:

• Provide more access to reproductive healthcare, including fertility treatments.
• Create dedicated spaces for lactation at all district schools and offices.
• Help employees enroll their children in LAUSD schools near where they work.

LAUSD officials are now working on a plan to provide these new benefits, Ortiz Franklin said, with some of the new services coming online in the current school year.

Maya Suzuki Daniels, a teacher at San Pedro High School and a mother to a kindergartner and an infant, said the district needs to do more to support working parents like her.  

Suzuki Daniels said she鈥檚 spent up to $1,600 a month for childcare, putting financial stress on her family while she鈥檚 trying to work full time and raise young children.

鈥淚 exhausted all of my sick time, and I now am paying for their child care through personal loans,鈥� Daniels said, 鈥渨hich I’m told is very typical and normal for a working teacher. That sucks.鈥�