If you want to do something heroic this election cycle, start with mothers. Put us at the forefront of your platforms. Then follow through.
This weekend, the entire nation is recognizing us in honor of Mother’s Day.
But I implore you to consider that mothers – especially those raising young children – need more than a day of social media graphics, throwback photos and platitudes. We need consistent and tangible support. The way we support mothers during the earliest stages of parenthood eventually echoes throughout the entire society.
What Happens to Mothers Eventually Happens to Society
If we’re serious about reducing violence, improving public health, strengthening the workforce, and retaining families in the Virgin Islands, then we need to stop treating support for mothers and young children like some sort of personal luxury.
It’s public infrastructure.
The truth is: many of the crises we’re trying to solve downstream are rooted much closer to the beginning of life than we often realize.
We have a mental health crisis. We are losing too many young people — especially young men — to violence and instability. At the same time, many of our leading causes of death are tied to chronic illnesses like diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, all while our healthcare infrastructure remains stretched thin.
These are deeply complex issues. But healthier family foundations are a meaningful place to start.
Countries like Denmark — one of St. Croix’s former colonial powers — along with Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Canada have spent decades investing in early childhood development and family stability. Today, they’re seeing the dividends in the form of healthier adults, stronger workforces, and lower long-term social strain.
Meanwhile, the United States remains the only developed nation where paid parental leave is not federally guaranteed.
And yes, we are deeply shaped by American systems here in the USVI. But we don’t have to accept every limitation of the federal baseline as the ceiling for what we can become.
Like states, we have the ability to create local policies that reflect our own values, priorities, and vision for family life here.
So where exactly are our mothers and families falling through the cracks?
We Expect Mothers to Recover in Six-12 Weeks – Or Face the Financial Consequences
Let’s be real: six to 12 weeks is barely enough time to physically recover from childbirth, much less adjust emotionally, establish routines, bond with your baby, and stabilize your household.
Anyone who’s studied early childhood development will tell you that’s not enough time for a baby to develop a secure attachment. Additionally, any mother will tell you how unnatural it feels to be separated from your baby so soon.
Most of us don’t go back because we’re ready. We go back because we have to.
FMLA helps somewhat, but it doesn’t account for enough time with the baby, and not everyone is eligible for that.
I will never forget the daunting feeling that came over me when I learned about short-term disability for the first time.
STD… lol… imagine that – giving birth documented as STD. Even the name sounds icky…but I digress.
Anyway, it means your family can rely on only 60% of your income for five weeks while you recover from childbirth and care for your newborn at the same time.
That’s wild.
But sometimes I grapple with the question: Is it an attitude of entitlement to want and expect more for mothers?
Someone recently told me: “You should have saved more. Or keep your legs closed.” True story. Lol.
Jarring. But I just laughed because the place it came from is so familiar to me.
It came from that old West Indian ‘Tough Love’ mindset many families inherited after generations of hardship – where there wasn’t much room to think about emotional wellbeing or systemic barriers. Just survival.
The truth is: we did save.
And thank God we did, because it helped carry us through the unpaid portions of leave. Twice.
But how long would a middle-class family realistically need to save in order for one parent to stay home with a baby for six months? A year? And even if they could, what happens to job security afterward?
More and more, ordinary family life feels financially out of reach unless you already have some sort of built-in advantage — inherited property, multigenerational support, or income levels far beyond what many working families realistically earn.
The goalposts for middle-class stability keep shifting, which begs the question: Should wealth increasingly determine who gets to build healthy families?
Raising Children Here is Financially Suffocating
The average household income in the USVI is estimated somewhere between $37,000–$50,000 annually. Now compare that to basic monthly costs:
- Rent or mortgage: $1,500+
- Childcare: $750+ per child
- WAPA: $300+
- Gas: $160+
- Groceries: $600+
For a household with one to two children, we’re already at around $39,720 – $48,720 in annual expenses.
That’s before emergencies. Before healthcare costs. Before deductions from your paycheck. Before trying to build savings.
And depending on your income, you may still not qualify for meaningful government assistance.
“Save more???” Sounds like simple advice, but it ignores the economic reality many working families are already navigating.
Policies that better support families in the first year of a child’s life would not be charity. They would be long-term social investment.
Breastfeeding Was Never Meant to Happen Like This
A pump room is not enough.
That’s technically all employers have to provide when you come back to work between six-12 weeks after giving birth.
But breastfeeding is hard enough already.
What we don’t talk about enough is how devastating it feels when being away at work for long stretches disrupts breastfeeding entirely.
Babies become accustomed to bottles. Milk supply drops. It feels like you’re a failure. But it’s really the structure around us that has made what should be a natural process so hard to sustain.
Why is this such a big deal?
We now know that breastfeeding has major long-term health benefits for both babies and mothers, including lower risks of obesity, diabetes, certain cancers, and cardiovascular disease. (FYI: These are some of the leading causes of death here.)
Experts recommend breastfeeding for at least six months.
Going back to an office after six weeks does not make this likely.
Which brings me to flexibility.
Flexible Work Shouldn’t Depend on Having a “Nice Boss”
Not every job can be remote. I get that.
But many knowledge-based jobs can now be performed remotely or through hybrid arrangements without sacrificing productivity.
That’s why I’m a strong advocate for giving mothers of young children greater access to flexible schedules, hybrid arrangements, and remote work protections where feasible.
Of course there should be guardrails and protections for employers who may face people who abuse the system or severe performance issues.
But right now, the protections for moms are optional and dependent on the happenstance of being under compassionate leadership.
That shouldn’t be.
To be fair – many employers are operating within the constraints of the current system themselves. And that’s exactly why policy matters.
We should create structures that make investing in families easier and more sustainable, not something dependent on exceptional corporate goodwill.
What If Community Investment Started at Home?
Systemic changes that address these gaps can’t be driven by government alone.
It will take a public-private partnership to make many of these things happen.
But public policy can be a catalyst.
Our economic development programs, for example, can be great vehicles for this type of systemic change.
Many successful companies are already drawn to our islands for the tax incentive programs – programs tied to local employment and community giving requirements.
What if certain family-supportive benefits — like expanded parental leave or childcare assistance — could count toward portions of those community investment obligations?
I would argue that investing directly into the wellbeing of employees raising families here may have a deeper long-term community impact than simply distributing small amounts of money across dozens of organizations for optics’ sake.
That’s not an attack on businesses. It’s an invitation to think creatively about what community investment can mean.
I won’t pretend to have all the answers.
But I have faith that we are totally capable of building systems that reflect the values we claim to care about.
Protect Mothers Like the Future Depends on It
So this season, while candidates file papers, launch campaigns, and make promises about the future of the Virgin Islands, I hope they remember this:
The future is already here.
It’s being raised right now by exhausted mothers trying to nurture children while surviving economic pressure, limited support systems, and a culture that too often treats burnout like strength.
Protect the women raising the next generation of Virgin Islanders.
Protect the children bubbling with potential to do revolutionary things in this place.
Support parental presence, secure attachment, and healthy development in the earliest years of life.
Help families thrive instead of merely survive here.
Yes, this is a small place. But small places can do ‘big tings.’
And this, my friends, is a big thing.
— Wyndi Ambrose is a Virgin Islands-based marketing strategist, former journalist, and mother of two who cares deeply about family wellbeing, community development, and the future of the territory. She believes small places can do ‘big tings.’
Editor’s Note: Opinion articles do not represent the views of the Virgin Islands Source newsroom and are the sole expressed opinion of the writer. Submissions can be made to visource@gmail.com.
