Toby’s House Crisis Nursery, a nonprofit in Great Falls, dedicated to preventing child abuse and neglect, has secured land for a new facility after an extensive search spanning months. This milestone, announced in mid-September, marks a significant step forward for the organization, which provides crisis, respite, and transitional care for children ages 0-6 at no cost and without income requirements.
Named in memory of October “Toby” Perez, a 2-year-old who tragically died from abuse in 2011, the nursery offers short-term refuge (up to 72 hours) for children in high-stress family situations, such as parental substance use, mental health challenges, or temporary instability. It helps prevent child welfare interventions by giving parents a safe drop-off option while connecting families to support services. Since opening in late 2020, demand has grown alongside rising abuse reports in Cascade County — from 217 cases in 2012 to 551 in 2017, with trends continuing amid Montana’s opioid and meth crises.
A generous donor purchased the new site, enabling the expansion without immediate financial strain on the nonprofit. The location provides room for a larger building, initially planned to increase capacity from the current setup (which supports up to 8 children) to potentially 16–24 beds in the future. This addresses space constraints that have limited services despite increasing community needs.
As Montana’s first crisis nursery, Toby’s House is now serving as a statewide model. In partnership with the state’s Birth to Five program and a federal Preschool Development Grant (PDG B-5), it’s guiding the establishment of similar facilities in other communities. Executive Director Leesha Ford emphasized the goal of building a connected network: “Children matter… Places like Toby’s House are designed to be a welcoming space during difficult times, backed by a generous community that cares about kids.”
In November 2024, Mysten Price was appointed as the new director, bringing expertise in social work and family outreach. Under her leadership, the organization is enhancing community partnerships and wraparound services, such as follow-up support to help families achieve long-term stability.
How You Can Support
The nursery relies on community contributions. Visit tobyshousemt.org to donate or learn more.
Qualified volunteers are needed for childcare and administrative roles. Contact them at 406-770-3191 or admin@tobyshousemt.org.
Sharing stories like Toby’s can help reduce stigma around seeking help — early intervention saves lives.
This expansion couldn’t come at a better time, as Montana continues to grapple with family stressors. For the latest updates, check their Facebook page.
Should Illegal Aliens be banned from welfare?
The question of whether illegal aliens should be banned from welfare involves legal, economic, moral, and political dimensions. Here’s a somewhat simplified overview of arguments for and against, aiming for a bit more clarity and balance.
Argument for Banning
Critics argue that welfare benefits, funded by taxpayers, should be reserved for citizens and legal residents who contribute to the system. Providing benefits to those who entered unlawfully is seen as incentivizing illegal immigration.
Some claim that illegal aliens’ use of welfare (e.g., emergency Medicaid, school lunches) burdens public resources, citing estimates like the $150 billion net cost annually from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (a group advocating stricter immigration policies).
Proponents argue that denying welfare could discourage illegal immigration, reducing pressure on border security and public services.
Argument Against Banning
Opponents argue that denying basic aid (e.g., food assistance, medical care) to vulnerable populations, including children, violates ethical principles of compassion and human dignity, which many Christians and others hold.
Illegal aliens often pay taxes (e.g., sales, property, or income taxes via ITINs) without accessing many benefits. The Social Security Administration estimates they contribute $13 billion annually to Social Security, often without claiming benefits.
Providing limited welfare, like emergency healthcare or school meals, benefits society by preventing disease spread or ensuring educated, stable communities, regardless of immigration status.
Current Context
On the practical side of the issue, enforcing a total ban could increase administrative costs (e.g., verifying status) or lead to unintended consequences, like increased poverty or crime.
On the moral side of it, some Christians cite biblical calls to care for the “stranger” (e.g., Leviticus 19:34), while others prioritize rule of law.
As far the data is concerned, exact costs and benefits are debated, as studies vary widely based on assumptions (e.g., including citizen children’s benefits in “immigrant” costs).
Banning illegal aliens from welfare hinges on whether one prioritizes legal exclusivity and deterrence or humanitarian and societal benefits. The issue can be complex, but it doesn’t have to be.
It’s been said that we are a nation of immigrants and this is true — immigrants that came legally, followed our laws, tax codes, and worked to become a better version of themselves by becoming United States citizens.
At the end of the day we might just happen to come across a rather simple solution that posits that an illegal alien shouldn’t have to be banned from welfare if he or she would file all of the necessary documents required in order to be here, or, collect a small stipend from the government in order to return back to their nation of origin.