HB 835 would expand Montana’s at-home infant care program by extending eligibility from infants under 2 years of age to children under 3 years of age. The program allows low-income families to receive a payment in lieu of child-care assistance when a parent stays home to provide full-time care, so long as the family meets income, work-history, and other eligibility requirements. The bill also increases the maximum period of assistance from 24 months to 36 months and keeps the existing structure that treats the payment as earned income for state program purposes.
In addition to changing the eligibility statute, the bill appropriates $2 million from the general fund for each year of the 2025-2027 biennium to fund the program and states legislative intent that the appropriation become part of the ongoing base budget in the next session. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, and would amend section 52-2-710, MCA, governing the at-home infant care program administered by the Department of Public Health and Human Services.
Impact
HB 835 would directly amend Montana law governing the at-home infant care program by extending the age limit for participating children, lengthening the maximum duration of benefits, and updating related eligibility language. It would also create a new general fund appropriation for the Department of Public Health and Human Services to pay for the expanded program, affecting state budgeting and potentially increasing access to in-home child care support for qualifying low-income families.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had limited visible debate in the available record, but the committee action suggests at least some support for the concept, with a 17-0 vote on a motion to table in House Human Services. Despite that unanimous vote, the bill ultimately died in process, indicating that it did not advance through the legislative process. Overall, the available evidence points to a generally favorable or noncontroversial reception in committee, but not enough momentum to become law.
Contention
No committee transcript is available, so specific objections are not documented in the provided materials. The main policy questions likely centered on whether the state should expand a cash assistance-style child care program, how to fund the $2 million biennial appropriation, and whether extending benefits to age 3 and 36 months would be the best use of limited child care resources. Any concern would likely have come from fiscal or program-priority considerations rather than from the eligibility framework itself.