There are many factors to consider when determining the best place to raise your family. Being near extended family is a bonus, and for many parents, choosing a location where their profession thrives is vital.

Within a general area, you might consider different school districts, access to parks and other amenities, and growing neighborhoods. At the state level, though, there is a clear divide in factors such as the cost of living and how public policies affect your family.

When we look at the most expensive and cheapest states to raise a child, it’s also worth looking at what value families get for that cost. How are the schools? Will my children have access to health care?

Here are the rankings of the 5 most expensive and 5 least expensive states to raise a child from birth to age 18, along with how they match up on these other factors.

#1: Hawaii — The Most Expensive State To Raise A Child

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, according to Lending Tree, is now $303,418. In Hawaii, where the economy relies heavily on tourism, it’s much higher. Currently, projections indicate that raising a child to age 18 in Hawaii will cost about $412,661.

The cost per year for the first five years of child-rearing has, on average, dropped to about $29,325 annually. It’s a cost-intensive time, thanks to childcare and other expenses. However, Hawaii is an exception to this drop. Here, having a child under the age of five is projected to cost about $40,342 annually.

How does Hawaii rank in other characteristics important for raising a family? For children’s health, it falls firmly in the middle of U.S. states. Forbes ranks it #21, with a score of 63.84, based on a metric that includes access, disease, and risk factor prevalence, and lifestyle. In terms of education, Consumer Affairs ranked Hawaii 28th in education last year, using a system that factors in K-12 performance, higher education, school safety, and education spending.

#2: Alaska — Costs Well Above Average

Alaska can be expensive, largely because it’s remote, which complicates transportation and access to necessities. The estimated $365,047 cost to raise a child to age 18 in Alaska is more than $60k above the average, or about an extra $3.3k per year.

The same factors that make Alaska more expensive can also complicate access to health care and education. Forbes currently ranks it 34th in children’s health, with a score of 43.67%, noting that more than 1 in 20 kids cannot access needed healthcare. Worse, the Consumer Affairs education ranking places Alaska 49th out of 50 in 2025, a huge fall from its position at 27 in 2024, largely due to schools that are unsafe or falling apart and a failure to fund their repair.

#3: Maryland — Education & Healthcare Are Valued

Maryland is the first state where we find that education and healthcare are elevated, along with costs. Lending Tree finds that raising a child for 18 years in Maryland will cost about $326,360. It’s more than the national average, but by less than $1,300 per year.

The balance is that Maryland is ranked second on Forbes‘ child health charts, with a score of 97%. It earned this ranking by having the third-highest rate of vaccinated kids, the second-lowest rate of child tooth decay, and one of the lowest percentages of youth who needed but couldn’t access mental health care.

It also ranks well for education, landing at number 9 on the Consumer Affairs chart — up from number 12 the previous year.

#4: California — Mixed Bag Of Scores

California ranks fourth-highest in projected child-rearing costs, though it’s only slightly above the national average, with an estimated 18-year cost of $312,300. The national average, recall, is $303,418, so that’s about an extra $500 per year to raise a child in California.

California falls below the midline for children’s health, ranked 28th with a score of 51.34%, and only 87.9% of kids in the state are considered to be in good health.

The state ranks a bit better in education, jumping up into the top ten last year. It’s now ranked 8th in the U.S., up from 32nd in 2024.

#5: New Jersey — One Of The Best Balances Of Cost To Care

Okay, New Jersey is the fifth most expensive state to raise a child to adulthood, with an estimated cost only $5 below California over 18 years. However, it’s also the last state on the list to be above the national average, at $312,295. (Again, that means a parent in New Jersey spends an average of about $500 per year more than the national average to get a kid from birth to adulthood.)

New Jersey, however, provides the bang for the buck.

It ranks #12 in children’s health, with a score of 72%. Remember, that’s based on 3 criteria according to Forbes: access to care, disease and risk factor prevalence, and lifestyle habits. 90.4% of kids are deemed to be in good or excellent health, and only 3.1% report being unable to access needed healthcare.

New Jersey also makes the grade in education, ranking number 4 overall in 2025. While being in the top five is great anyway, it’s also ranked the top state for school safety, which is another plus.

#46: Iowa — Another Mixed Bag

Raising a child from birth to nominal adulthood in Iowa will cost almost $100k less than the national average. Lending Tree‘s projections suggest the average parent in the state can expect to spend $215,443 per child. That’s a savings of nearly $5k per year.

Whether it balances out will be a decision for each family. Iowa isn’t too shabby when it comes to children’s health. Forbes ranked it #7, with a score of 82.27%. A few important factors here are that Iowa had the second-lowest number of kids who reported zero days a week of physical activity and fell within the lowest quadrant for both kids unable to obtain needed medical care and kids unable to obtain needed mental health care.

Education is also a mixed bag. Consumer Affairs ranked Iowa #26, but terrible safety rankings (45th out of 50) and low funding (35th out of 50) pulled that score down. Despite this, it ranked 6th in K12 performance.

47: Alabama — Low Costs, But Healthcare & Education Suffer

The projected cost to raise a child to age 18 in Alabama is $212,121, more than $5k per year cheaper than the national average. It’s also one of the cheapest states to have a child under age 5, thanks to lower childcare costs. The estimated annual cost of raising an under-5 in Alabama is $18,019 — less than half of what it costs in the most expensive states, and about 2/3 of the national average ($29,325).

That said, there are trade-offs for a low cost of living. Forbes rates Alabama 31st in child health, and at 66.8%, it has one of the highest rates of youth who had major mental health incidents and were unable to receive needed care.

Alabama was ranked 43rd in education, a gain from 2024, when it was ranked 50th. However, it earns that low score by ranking poorly in all four metrics considered: 36th in K12 performance; 39th in school funding; 33rd in higher education, and 46th in school safety.

#48: Mississippi — Low Costs But Concerning Outcomes

Mississippi is a fractionally cheaper state in which to raise a child than Alabama, but rates far lower in child health and only a bit better in education. Here, it is projected to cost $208,621 over the course of childhood, with the lowest per-year cost for under-fives at $17,148 on average.

Unfortunately, Forbes ranks Mississippi #50 out of 50 states for child health, giving it a score of 1.81%. It has the second-highest percentage of kids who had a major depressive episode and didn’t receive mental health care (71.7%); and had its low ranks affirmed by large numbers of low-birth-weight babies (12.7%) and high rates of overweight or obese adolescents (42.4%).

Mississippi isn’t balancing this out in the education department, where Consumer Affairs ranks it 29th (a notable improvement from #39 the previous year). The state ranks 19th for K12 performance and 37th in school funding.

#49: South Carolina — Another Match Of Costs & Benefits

South Carolina is the second-cheapest state (the third-cheapest location ranked, when including the District of Columbia) to raise a child. The projected costs to take your bundle of joy all the way to voting age is $204,213.

Here, too, one can expect health and education benefits to match the expenditure pretty closely, unfortunately.

South Carolina ranked #32 on the child health charts, with an overall score of 43.88%. That’s made up of three poor ratings: an Access to Care score of 50.26%, a Disease & Risk Prevalence score of 56.46%, and a Lifestyle Habits score of 32.46%. Altogether, these factors consider aspects of health such as the number of kids with cavities and tooth decay, the percentage of kids who can’t access care for physical or mental health needs, and the percentage of kids who are overweight or don’t get enough physical activity.

The state ranks #42 in education, down from #38 in 2024. Individual metrics are consistently low: #43 for K12 performance, #30 for school funding, and #49 for school safety. The only education metric in which South Carolina rates somewhat better is higher education, in which it’s ranked 14th in the nation.

Special Mention: District Of Columbia

While DC isn’t a state, it’s often included separately in these rankings. Surprisingly, it’s one of the cheapest places to raise a child to age 18, with a projected cost of $202,115.

It also ranks relatively high in child health, coming in at number 10. It has one of the highest Access To Care scores possible: 97.35% (outdone only by Massachusetts and New Hampshire) and ranks 4th-best in Disease & Risk Prevalence, but falls a bit lower for Lifestyle Habits.

Consumer Reports did not include DC in its rankings last year, but a WalletHub ranking (with slightly different criteria) placed it at #24, citing high dropout rates and low math scores.

#50: New Hampshire — Overall Good Value

New Hampshire is the cheapest state in the U.S. to raise a child to age 18, according to Lending Tree‘s predictions. It’s the only state where the cost is (albeit slightly) more than $100k below the national average, at a projected $201,963.

The state has more than child-raising costs in its favor. It’s also one of the top states for child health, ranking #3 on the Forbes chart. That factors in that it’s the second-best for access to care and has the third-highest percentage of kids with health coverage (97.5%). It also ranks well for the percentage of kids who are overweight or obese (21.9%), babies with low birth weight (6.7%), and kids who don’t get enough sleep at night (25.9%).

In terms of education, New Hampshire’s overall rank on the Consumer Reports chart fell from 16 in 2024 to 22 in 2025, which is alarming until you see how it breaks down. The state ranked #50 for higher education, and #42 for school safety, but much higher, #11, for school funding, and near the top, #2 in the nation, for K12 performance.

Netflix has announced Charlie vs. the Chocolate Factory, a 2027 animated feature in which Willy Wonka, voiced by Taika Waititi, walks out of prison after serving time for turning a child into a blueberry, only to find a scrappy London teenager named Charlie Paley, voiced by Kit Connor, already plotting to break into his factory.

The announcement, made on April 16, 2026, positions the film as far more than a straightforward retelling of Roald Dahl’s classic. Set against a contemporary London backdrop, the story picks up years after the original Golden Ticket contest and treats Wonka’s more legally questionable experiments as actual crimes with actual consequences, a premise that is equal parts absurd and inspired.

What The Story Is Actually About

According to production details released alongside the announcement, Wonka has completed his sentence and returned to the chocolate factory with grand ambitions to improve the world. Charlie Paley and a crew of friends, threatened with eviction, cook up a scheme to infiltrate the factory and make off with a prized Wonka Bar.

The heist takes an unexpected turn once they get inside and discover consequences none of them anticipated. Jared Stern and Elaine Bogan direct the film, with Aron Warner and Timothy Yoo producing and Waititi himself serving as executive producer. Animation is handled by Sony Pictures Imageworks.

Stern described the project with obvious enthusiasm. “Having been raised on the delightfully twisted world of Willy Wonka, it’s a privilege to bring his continued adventures to life as twisted adults,” Stern told Animation World Network.

“And how sweet to do it like never before via the magic of animation, creating a Charlie vs. the Chocolate Factory that’s more deliciously unhinged than your wildest imagination. If we do a rotten job, you can throw us down a rubbish chute!”

It would be easy to dismiss the “Wonka goes to jail” angle as a cheap gimmick, but the framing actually does something clever: it takes the original story’s most morally ambiguous moments, Wonka casually transforming children into candy byproducts, and asks what accountability might look like in a modern context.

The result is a premise that feels genuinely fresh rather than simply nostalgic, which is exactly what a story this familiar needs to justify its existence as a new film.

The Cast Is A Natural Fit For This Story

Waititi brings a well established gift for eccentric, unpredictable characters to the role of Wonka, and his involvement as both voice actor and executive producer signals genuine creative investment in the project.

Connor, meanwhile, arrives with serious credentials for family entertainment: he won a Children’s and Family Emmy for his performance in Heartstopper, making him a natural fit for a story centered on a resourceful, relatable teenager navigating an extraordinary situation.

Connor shared his excitement about the project in a statement released with the announcement. “I was immediately caught by the early concept art, and the directors’ vision for the film — capturing the spirit and heart that made the original story so special, whilst imbuing it with something so fresh and unique,” Connor told Deadline. “It’s such a fun representation of the London that I know. This new adventure is going to surprise audiences around the world, you’re in for a treat!”

Waititi also weighed in on what drew him to the role. “He is so special to me, and the opportunity to voice such an iconic, eccentric candy genius — if a little mischievous at times — is hugely exciting.”

The Roald Dahl Connection And Netflix’s Bigger Plans

Netflix acquired the Roald Dahl Story Company back in 2021, giving the streamer broad rights to develop Dahl’s catalog across multiple formats. Charlie vs. the Chocolate Factory is not the only project emerging from that deal; a competition series called The Golden Ticket, also rooted in the same story world, was previously announced.

The source novel has been translated into nearly 60 languages and remains the top-selling Dahl title in more than 25 countries, which gives Netflix a genuinely massive built-in audience for anything bearing the Wonka name.

Hannah Minghella, Head of Feature Animation and Family Film at Netflix Animation Studios, framed the film as both a tribute and a reinvention. “With their singular comedic and visual flair, Jared and Elaine have concocted a delightful adventure that remains true to the spirit of Dahl’s beloved novel while imagining a brand new story that introduces this world to a new generation,” Minghella told Animation World Network. “We can’t wait for audiences around the world to experience the magic and mayhem for themselves when the film comes out next year.”

The film joins a broader animated slate at Netflix that also includes upcoming features Steps and Ray Gunn. For families already navigating Netflix’s growing library of kids and family content, the Wonka announcement adds one of the most recognizable names in children’s literature to a pipeline that keeps expanding.

Why This Is Worth Your Family’s Attention

Dahl adaptations have a long track record of landing differently with kids and adults, and the best ones work precisely because they do not talk down to either audience.

Netflix itself has demonstrated that range in its current family catalog, which spans everything from the goofy slapstick of Dog Man to more emotionally layered fare, proof that animated films can hold the attention of parents and children at the same time. The creative team behind Charlie vs. the Chocolate Factory appears to understand that balance.

A heist plot, a prison backstory, a contemporary city setting, and two lead performers with genuine comedic and dramatic range all suggest a film built for the whole family rather than just the youngest viewers. If you are looking for something to add to your watchlist now, there are already plenty of family movies worth watching together while you wait for 2027.

Charlie vs. the Chocolate Factory is scheduled for release on Netflix in 2027.

Erin Andrews is refusing to close the door on pregnancy at 47, telling listeners of her podcast that a failed IVF round has done nothing to shake her conviction that her body is still capable. 

The NFL sportscaster’s candid update is drawing both admiration and a broader conversation about what fertility over 40 actually looks like for most women.

A Failed Round, an Unshaken Resolve

During the April 14 episode of Calm Down With Erin and Charissa, Andrews told cohost Charissa Thompson that her most recent IVF attempt had not succeeded. She had returned to her fertility doctor, tried a new protocol involving Human Growth Hormone, Gonal-f, and Clomid, and came away disappointed. Rather than stepping back, Andrews leaned into the fight. “I just feel like, I believe my body can do it,” she explained on the podcast, as first reported by Us Magazine. “Even though I know that my age — with what history says — is not great with producing eggs and the viability of your eggs.”

Andrews has also acknowledged the science while admitting she’s not letting it deter her: “There’s just some s*** in me that I’m like, ‘Watch me do it,'”. Her doctor, she noted, has told her he will be honest when the time truly comes to stop — and until that moment arrives, Andrews intends to keep going.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Calm Down with Erin & Charissa (@calmdownpodcast)

A Decade of Heartbreak and Hope

Andrews and her husband, former NHL player Jarret Stoll, welcomed their son Mack via surrogate in 2023, a milestone that followed years of setbacks rooted in a cervical cancer diagnosis Andrews received in 2016. 

Treatment significantly complicated her fertility options, and the couple spent years navigating IVF before Mack’s arrival. Cohost Thompson, reflecting on that road, observed that Andrews had encountered obstacle after obstacle on the way to her son and had refused to be stopped by any of them.

Now, Andrews is describing the pull back toward fertility treatment as something almost compulsive. “It’s crazy, because once you get back on the phone with your fertility doctor and you start talking about the journey again, PTSD all comes back of how crappy you felt, how numb your body gets, just the fear of loss.” Andrews said on her podcast that she has also been open about the financial and emotional strain the process places on a marriage, telling listeners that IVF is “taxing on your financials” and that couples must extend each other patience and grace throughout.

Stoll, 43, has been a steady presence through the lows. Andrews credited him with helping her process the moments when she felt like a failure, saying his willingness to simply acknowledge that things were hard made an enormous difference.

The Waiting Room That Changed Everything

One of the most striking parts of Andrews’ ongoing public conversation about fertility is her explanation for why she started talking about it at all. She told E! News that sitting in a packed fertility clinic waiting room during her eighth attempt was what finally broke her silence.

“These waiting rooms are packed,” she recalled thinking. “Why am I being so embarrassed and quiet about this?” Once she began sharing, the response from other women going through the same thing was immediate and overwhelming. The support, she said, was “really awesome.”

That decision to speak openly has made Andrews a touchstone for women navigating infertility, particularly those doing so later in life. She has previously described the ritual of processing bad news from her fertility clinic, the early morning appointments, the difficult phone calls to her husband, and the small comforts that got her through the day. 

The emotional texture of those stories resonates precisely because they are so specific and so human.

The Bigger Picture: What Celebrity Fertility Stories Often Leave Out

Andrews’ story is part of a growing wave of public figures announcing pregnancies or fertility journeys in their forties. Aubrey Plaza, Sienna Miller, Savannah Miller, Gisele Bündchen, and Hilary Swank are among the celebrities who have recently shared news of pregnancies or births at 41 or older. 

The trend has prompted real questions about what these stories communicate to the millions of women who are quietly struggling.

A columnist writing in The Independent about the broader pattern of celebrity fertility announcements over 40 argued that the upbeat framing of these stories often glosses over brutal realities.

“That’s why these celebrity ‘miracle’ stories are selling a sometimes impossible dream of motherhood over 40,” the columnist wrote. “While they share about how it is ‘easier’ to have children in their forties, they rarely talk about the challenges of getting pregnant after 40.” 

The columnist spent years and enormous sums on IVF before having children at 40 and 42, and described the experience as an “utter nightmare” that bore no resemblance to the breezy narratives celebrities often offer.

The statistics support that concern. According to data cited in The Independent, women aged 40 to 42 who pursue IVF have a birth rate of about 10 percent per embryo transferred, dropping to roughly 5 percent for women aged 43 to 44.

A large study published in the BMJ found that nearly 55 percent of intended pregnancies in women aged 42 resulted in fetal loss. Natural conception after 45 carries an estimated success rate of around 1 percent. The CDC has reported rising birth rates among women in their forties, but those numbers exist alongside these sobering clinical realities.

Why Erin Andrews Journey Feels Different

What separates Andrews from the broader celebrity fertility conversation is the degree to which she has refused to make it look easy. She has talked about feeling like a failure. She has described the physical numbness that comes with repeated hormone treatments.

She has acknowledged that her age is working against her and said it plainly, without softening it. Her defiance is not denial — it is a choice she is making with full awareness of the odds.

That combination of honesty and determination is rare in public fertility narratives, and it is why her updates land differently than a simple pregnancy announcement. Andrews is not selling a dream. She is showing the work.

What This Means For Families Navigating Fertility

Andrews’ willingness to share the unglamorous details of IVF, the failed rounds, the fear of returning to a place of loss, the strain on a marriage, gives other families permission to name those same experiences.

Fertility treatment at any age is physically demanding and emotionally destabilizing, and the silence that often surrounds it can make the isolation feel even heavier. When someone with a public platform describes sitting in a waiting room and deciding she is done being quiet about it, that moment has meaning far beyond her own story.

Whether Andrews ultimately achieves a second pregnancy or not, her doctor has promised to tell her when it is truly time to stop. Until then, she is pressing forward and making sure that no one going through the same thing feels alone in that waiting room.

Parenting influencer Kelly Hopton Jones is speaking out after her 23-month-old son Henry was struck by her own vehicle in a terrifying accident, turning a routine moment into a parent’s worst nightmare and prompting her to issue an urgent warning to her followers.

Hopton Jones, 36, took to Instagram on Wednesday, April 15, to share what happened, describing the emotional aftermath of the incident and the relief that came with a doctor’s reassurance. The post quickly resonated with parents across social media, many of whom recognized the kind of split-second scenario that can upend any family’s life without warning.

What Happened to Henry

The details Hopton Jones shared paint a picture of the kind of accident that can occur even when a parent is present and attentive. Henry, just shy of his second birthday at 23 months old, was struck by the family car. In the immediate aftermath, Hopton Jones faced the unimaginable task of processing both the trauma of the incident and the uncertainty of her son’s condition.

Medical staff offered some relief. A doctor told her, “He is hurt, but this is something he can recover from,” as Hopton Jones recounted on Instagram, People reported. That reassurance, while not erasing the fear, gave the family reason for hope.

A Mother’s Emotional Reckoning

Beyond the physical outcome, Hopton Jones was candid about the psychological weight of what occurred. Writing directly to her audience, she reflected on how much worse things could have been. “I can’t even let my brain fully go to how different this situation could be right now,” Hopton Jones shared via Instagram, as reported by US Magazine. “It’s so easy to start questioning everything.”

That kind of raw honesty is part of what makes her platform connect with parents. Rather than waiting until the dust settled, she chose to share the experience while the fear and gratitude were still fresh. Going public so quickly reflects her commitment to using her platform not just for curated family moments, but for the messy, frightening ones too.

Here’s her full account of the harrowing moment via her Instagram account @hillside_farmhouse:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kelly Hopton-Jones | Motherhood (@hillside_farmhouse)

Why This Resonates With So Many Parents

Accidents in driveways and parking areas involving young children are far more common than most families realize. Toddlers move quickly, crouch low, and often fall outside a driver’s line of sight, particularly near the front or rear of a vehicle. The danger is not exclusive to distracted or negligent parents. It can strike anyone, in any driveway, on any ordinary afternoon.

Hopton Jones made that point central to her message. Her post was not just a personal disclosure but a direct appeal to other parents to stay vigilant around vehicles with small children nearby. The speed at which these accidents unfold is precisely what makes them so devastating and so preventable with the right precautions.

Practical Steps Parents Can Take

Child safety advocates consistently recommend a few key habits around vehicles when toddlers are present. Always do a full walk around your car before getting in and reversing. Use backup cameras as a supplement, not a replacement, for visual checks. Designate a safe waiting spot away from the vehicle for young children while adults load or unload. And never assume a toddler is where you last saw them, because at this age, they move fast and silently.

Rear visibility blind zones on many standard vehicles can extend up to 50 feet behind the car, meaning a small child standing directly behind a bumper may be completely invisible to the driver. That reality makes the walk-around habit one of the most important safety steps a parent can build into their daily routine.

For some time, the medical and scientific communities have recognized that puberty is hitting girls at younger and younger ages. In addition to simply adding complications to a child’s life before she’s ready to deal with them, earlier puberty also seems to carry health risks.

Many factors have been examined as possible causes, including dietary shifts, products used in food production, and environmental factors. A new study finds that a combination of hormonal changes and other factors (including stress and BMI) are associated with earlier onset of puberty.

Here’s what the study found, and what parents should know.

Stress, BMI, Progesterone, & More

A new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism finds that hormones (specifically progesterone, androgens, and glucocorticoids) are a factor in the earlier onset of puberty-related changes, but that stress and BMI also affect the timing. Meanwhile, higher estrogen levels were actually correlated with the later onset of some signs of puberty.

Girls who measured high on glutocorticoid hormones, BMI, and stress levels, on average, began showing physical changes in their bodies an average of 7.2 months earlier than girls who measured lower on all three factors.

While higher hormone levels alone showed a correlation with earlier puberty, the association was much stronger when stress and BMI were higher, and less prominent in girls with lower stress and BMI.

The Long-Observed Shift

Since at least the 1980s, doctors have been noticing that more and more girls are starting puberty at younger ages. At that time, The Guardian reports that medical wisdom didn’t predict the first changes until at least age 11, but Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens noticed an unusually high number of girls under age 10 showing signs. She raised questions that led to further research, and the numbers have continued to shift since.

“Consider the statistics provided by German researchers. They found that in 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years. In 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and in 2010, it had dropped to 10.5. Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year.”

Researchers have since sought the cause of this earlier onset of puberty. They’ve found a variety of correlations, such as Kaiser Permanente’s 2020 research, which found that girls who do not live in a two-parent home from birth to age two are more likely to start puberty at an earlier age. (Does this possibly correlate with the new findings about stress?)

Research has also found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American girls have higher rates of early-onset puberty, and in some cases, it can be caused by a tumor on the spine or brain, injuries to the spine or brain, certain genetic changes, or other medical conditions, according to the University of Michigan Health Sparrow.

However, so far, there is no single definitive cause that researchers can pinpoint in a way that would allow prevention or correction on a population scale.

Why Does Early Puberty Matter?

Starting puberty before one’s peers can cause social discomfort and increase mental health concerns. The American Psychological Association has advised extra support in coping skills for these girls, and noted that the symptoms aren’t unique to girls who medically meet the standards for ‘precocious puberty’ (starting before age 8) but also apply to any child who begins seeing bodily changes ahead of her peer group.

“Early-maturing girls are at increased risk of a range of psychosocial problems including depression, substance use and early sexual behavior.”

The Endocrine Society (positing that chemical exposure may be a factor and calling for additional research) adds that early-onset puberty is associated with a long list of physical health problems, including “obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and breast cancer.”

What Does The New Data Mean For Parents & Daughters?

The finding that BMI and stress may play a role in early puberty onset doesn’t mean that a better diet, more mental health care, or an easier life will prevent an individual girl from starting puberty early. The study did still find correlations between higher hormone levels and early puberty onset, even in girls with lower stress and BMI, just with a less-strong connection.

It does give parents and pediatricians some new information to work with to help predict which girls may be at higher risk, though, and early intervention can help protect girls.

Treatments do exist to halt and prevent precocious puberty when diagnosed, which can include hormone therapy or finding and treating an underlying medical problem that is causing it. That means that any information that helps medical teams predict precocious puberty more clearly is information that can make kids safer.

The first trial project to add fluoride to a community’s water supply began in 1945, and today, almost two-thirds of the U.S. population get their water from fluoridated supplies. Data suggest that at optimal levels, water fluoridation reduces childhood tooth decay by about 25%.

Despite findings from public health organizations and rigorous scientific studies, there have always been individuals and groups who remained skeptical of the safety of fluoride. More recently, commentary from some public figures has stoked those fears, particularly with the head of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services publicly musing about unsupported claims of cognitive damage.

This latest study directly addresses that claim, providing clear evidence that fluoride in public water supplies has no effect whatsoever on cognitive function.

What Does The Study Show?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has released data from a study examining over 10,000 individuals in the graduating class of 1957.

The study measures these individuals’ intelligence levels at 6 different points in their lives. First, it collects IQ scores from tests administered by their schools in the freshman and junior years. Then, a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was conducted at ages 53, 64, and 72. Finally, at age 80, participants were tested with the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICSm).

Using address information from the 1940 and 1950 U.S. Censuses, researchers confirmed whether each participant would have been living in an area with fluoridated public water at around ages 1 and 11 years.

Then, they compared the results and concluded:

“We find no evidence that CWF is associated with lower adolescent IQ or cognition later in life.”

What Claims Is The Study Debunking?

In 2025, two states (Utah and Florida) banned community water fluoridation. Florida’s governor argued, according to the Associated Press, that people should use fluoride on their teeth, but that to have it in the water supply was “basically forced medication” and taking away individual choice.

In August of 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released findings indicating that high-concentration fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ scores. That report noted, in bold:

What This Monograph Does Not Do:
This Monograph and Addendum do not address whether the sole exposure to fluoride added to drinking water in some countries (i.e., fluoridation, at 0.7 mg/L in the United States and Canada) is associated with a measurable effect on IQ.

Nonetheless, Fact Check reports that a then-candidate for president, who would later be named the Health Secretary, posted on social media, describing fluoride as a “neurotoxin,” quoting the report as indicating a link between fluoride and decreased intelligence, and entirely leaving out the relevant facts that this was about much higher doses of fluoride, and that the report itself was still under review.

The New Report Does Address These Claims

The researchers involved in the new study directly addressed these recent claims, noting that political figures have used them in arguments against community fluoridation.

They noted that these studies are based on exposure levels much higher than what is permitted in water supplies, and that there have been other concerns about the legitimacy and relevance of their data:

“None of their evidence came from population-representative samples; most failed to account for selection into treatment. None of the research was conducted using data collected in the United States.”

At this time, there appears to be no good data supporting claims of harm from fluoridation of community water (at regulated levels), and, in fact, this large new longitudinal study in the U.S. seems to affirm that there is none.

Why Does Community Fluoride Matter?

Yes, individuals can use fluoride at home. Infants can be given fluoride drops if recommended by their doctors, fluoride rinses and fluoridated toothpastes are available for purchase, and dentists can provide fluoride treatments.

However, community water fluoridation is a proven method to reduce tooth decay in children, to the extent that the American Dental Association (ADA) has attempted to intervene in states where bans have been passed. The ADA News released a statement when Utah passed its legislation:

“The evidence of reduced disease and cost implications provide a compelling reason to strongly consider the ramifications of ending community water fluoridation. With the weight of the evidence and nearly universal support of community water fluoridation in all corners of the health care sector, we urge your veto of [House Bill] 81,” states the letter, signed by ADA President Brett Kessler, D.D.S., and Interim Executive Director Elizabeth Shapiro, D.D.S., J.D.

Dental health is directly tied to whole-body health. Poor dental health makes it difficult to obtain necessary nutrition, causes severe pain, and can lead to further health concerns. The ADA urged legislators to choose children’s well-being over this agenda.

What Parents Can Take From All This

Conflicting studies, experts, and political figures taking opposing sides, along with heaps of data, can all be extremely confusing.

However, this latest data confirms that fluoride at levels in drinking water shows no signs of harm to children, intellectually or otherwise. Dentists, as a whole, say that fluoride is important for dental health, and recognize that dental health is vital to lifelong health.

If you do live in an area where your community water is not fluoridated, or you use water from an unfluoridated source, speak to your child’s pediatrician and/or dentist about whether you should be using fluoride drops for your infant, or if you need to take additional steps to protect your child’s teeth.

If your community water is fluoridated, rest easy. If you aren’t sure about your local water, the CDC has a page, My Water’s Fluoride, where you can get local information. For the most up-to-date and specific information, contact your local water provider.

The SKIMS co-founder says naming her limits is the most honest thing she can do for other working mothers

Emma Grede walked onto the TODAY set on April 14, ready to defend herself, and she did not flinch. The 43-year-old SKIMS co-founder and Good American CEO, who went viral after describing herself as a “max three-hour mom” in a Wall Street Journal profile published April 4, told co-hosts Jenna Bush Hager and Sheinelle Jones that the backlash was entirely predictable and that she stands by every word.

When Jones asked whether the public reaction caught her off guard, Grede was blunt. “Well, you know I just think that headline would never be written about a man,” she told Jenna Bush Hager and Sheinelle Jones on TODAY. “But, no. Was I caught off guard? Absolutely not because I think that’s what happens to women.”

Her point was not just about media double standards. It was about the impossible position working mothers occupy, expected to be both relentlessly present parents and high-performing professionals, with no acknowledged ceiling on either demand. Grede shares Grey, 11, Lola, 9, and twins Lake and Rafferty, 3, with husband Jens Grede.

The Reality of Weekends After a Full Work Week

Rather than walking back her comments, Grede reframed them as a form of practical honesty she believes the conversation around working motherhood desperately needs. “Let’s give a list of all the things I don’t do. Because you know what’s helpful? That’s what’s helpful to women,” she said on TODAY. That philosophy runs through her new book, Start With Yourself, released the same week as her TODAY appearance. In it, Grede argues that women are socially conditioned to minimize their ambitions and mask their limitations.

“There’s a lot of social conditioning that happens to us,” she told CNBC’s Julia Boorstin on the “CNBC Changemakers and Power Players” podcast. “‘She’s a good girl,’ and it teaches you to be small and be quiet and to be a pleaser.”

Grede also pushed back on the premise that three hours is a shockingly low number. She pointed out that the math of a working parent’s weekend rarely adds up to eight uninterrupted hours of child-focused time, regardless of how devoted that parent is.

“When you go to work every day Monday through Friday, you are spent by the time you get to the weekend,” she said on TODAY. “Anyone who has children, you know that you don’t spend eight hours on a Saturday and Sunday with them. You have errands to run, you have things to do.” When Bush Hager noted that children also benefit from time on their own, Grede agreed without hesitation, adding that she actively tries to build independence in her kids.

A Philosophy Rooted in Her Own Upbringing

Grede grew up in East London, raised by a single mother with limited financial resources, and that experience shaped both her drive and her views on honest ambition. In her original Wall Street Journal profile, she described her motivation plainly: “I wanted a different existence. I wanted to be in charge of my happiness.” That same logic extends to her parenting philosophy.

In a 2024 conversation with People, Grede described the boundaries she has drawn as a working mother, saying: “I don’t do pick up and drop off every single day. But if my kid’s in a play, I’m going to see my kid in the play. It’s not cookie-cutter, it’s different for every person.” Her household runs with a team of nannies, a chef, housekeepers, and a chief of staff, infrastructure she has been transparent about as part of what makes her schedule possible.

What This Says About Working Motherhood

The intensity of the reaction to Grede’s comments points to something larger than one entrepreneur’s weekend schedule. Working parents, and working mothers in particular, are routinely caught between two sets of expectations that cannot both be fully met.

Grede’s willingness to name that tension publicly on national television rather than deflect it with reassurances about balance and gratitude is, for many women, genuinely unusual. Her broader message in Start With Yourself extends the same logic to professional life, pushing back against the idea that women should keep quiet about wanting success.

There is a reason Grede’s three-hour comment spread so quickly: it named something many working parents feel but rarely say out loud. The cultural script for high-achieving mothers still tends toward reassurance — the idea that with the right systems and enough love, you really can do it all. Grede is explicitly rejecting that script, and the backlash she received suggests just how uncomfortable that rejection still makes people.

For parents navigating their own version of this tension, her argument is worth sitting with: the most useful thing a working mother might offer another working mother is not inspiration, but honesty about the trade-offs she actually makes.

Prince Harry reflected on a common feeling of ‘disconnection’ among new dads while in Australia.

Standing before an audience of fathers at Melbourne’s Whitten Oval on Wednesday, Prince Harry described one of the most quietly universal experiences in parenthood: feeling like a bystander while his wife, Meghan, carried their child. “Certainly, I felt a disconnection because my wife was the one creating life, and I was there to witness it,” Harry told the crowd at the Movember mental health event, urging new dads everywhere that they are “not alone.”

The remarks came during a four-day private tour of Australia with Meghan — their first visit to the country since 2018 — and offered one of Harry’s most personal accounts yet of the emotional terrain of early fatherhood. The couple’s two children, Archie and Lilibet, stayed home in California.

Therapy, The Past, And Preparing To Be A Father

Harry did not frame his experience as one of failure, but of deliberate preparation. In a conversation on stage with Movember’s global director of men’s health research Dr. Zac Seidler, the Duke described entering therapy before his children were born as an act of intention rather than a response to crisis.

“Certainly, from a therapy standpoint, you want to be the best version of yourself for your kids. And I knew that I had stuff from the past that I needed to deal with, and therefore prepare myself to basically cleanse myself of the past,” Harry told the audience.

He also reflected on the generational shift he sees in modern parenting. “Even if you had the best upbringing in the world, the best parenting in the world, there’s still room for improvement,” Harry said at the Movember event in Melbourne. He described a philosophy of forward momentum, saying “our kids are our upgrades” — not a judgment on previous generations, but a recognition that the world children inhabit today demands something new from parents.

Harry also recalled the specific anxiety of those first weeks after Archie’s birth, noting that stress was not something he could conceal. Each time he came home from work carrying tension, he said, Archie would sense it immediately and begin to cry. The observation functioned as both a confession and a lesson: infants are acutely attuned to their caregivers’ emotional states, and fathers are not exempt from that feedback loop.

What The Science Says About Paternal Disconnection

Harry’s candor about feeling like a witness to pregnancy rather than a participant in it may resonate with a surprisingly large share of expectant fathers. Research into what scientists call Couvade syndrome, a condition in which non-pregnant partners experience physical and emotional pregnancy symptoms, suggests that the psychological and even hormonal experience of pregnancy extends well beyond the person carrying the child.

Prevalence estimates vary widely across countries, with some studies finding the syndrome affects anywhere from roughly one in five to more than half of expectant fathers, though it remains officially unclassified as a medical disorder.

“The best way to describe it is sympathetic pregnancy,” Catherine Caponero, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told the BBC. “Essentially, it’s when a non-pregnant partner experiences pregnancy symptoms despite the fact that they’re not biologically pregnant.”

Researchers believe the condition is multifactorial, involving hormonal shifts — including measurable declines in testosterone and oestradiol in expectant fathers — alongside psychological stress and deep empathic identification with a pregnant partner.

The emotional turbulence does not necessarily end at birth. Research indicates that roughly one in ten new fathers develops clinically significant depression during the perinatal period, with rates climbing higher in the months immediately following birth. The cultural script around new parenthood focuses so heavily on the mother’s experience that fathers who struggle frequently do so without acknowledgment or support.

Personal accounts like that of Zack Fox, whose recovery from paternal postpartum depression involved medication, therapy, and open communication, illustrate how far-reaching the condition’s impact can be on families and workplaces. Growing advocacy in both Australia and the United Kingdom is pushing for mandatory perinatal mental health screening covering both parents, a policy shift that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

A Message That Landed With The Room

Dr. Seidler, who shared the stage with Harry, said the Duke’s willingness to speak from personal experience rather than from a script was what made the conversation meaningful. Seidler noted that Movember’s own research found one in five fathers felt extremely isolated after having a child, and that three in five fathers were never asked by a health professional how they were doing in the year after their baby was born.

“He’s really passionate about this, it matters to him, and he told us real stories that he had experienced, stuff that he’d spoken about with his wife, with his therapist,” Seidler told the BBC. “He really just wanted to get to the heart of it and talk about advocating for change.”

Harry also pointed to a broader intergenerational shift, describing conversations now happening between parents and children that simply did not exist between him and his own father. The Western Bulldogs presented him with personalized miniature AFL shirts bearing Archie and Lilibet’s names — a small gesture that visibly moved him before he headed out onto the oval for a kickabout with players.

Why This Conversation Matters For Every Parent

What stands out about Harry’s remarks is not their celebrity context but their ordinariness. The feeling of standing on the sidelines while a partner’s body does something extraordinary, and then scrambling to find your footing once a baby arrives, is one that millions of fathers navigate without language for it, without permission to name it, and often without anyone asking how they are doing. When someone with Harry’s platform says it plainly in a room full of dads, it does something that research papers and policy briefs cannot: it makes the experience feel speakable. That is not a small thing.

Harry closed his remarks at the Movember event with a direct appeal to any father who is struggling: “For so many years it has been seen as a weakness to stick your hands up. I find it’s the opposite,” he said.

As advocacy grows for screening both parents during the perinatal period, and as research continues to illuminate just how profoundly pregnancy and new parenthood reshape fathers as well as mothers, the cultural moment Harry stepped into on Wednesday in Melbourne may prove to be better timed than it first appears.

A new documentary about the SNL creator spotlights a gesture that every working parent deserves from their employer

When Lorne Michaels learned that Maya Rudolph was pregnant while working at Saturday Night Live, his response was not to quietly hope she would manage on her own. He offered to build her a nursery inside 30 Rock. That detail, surfaced in a new 2026 documentary simply titled Lorne, is more than a warm celebrity anecdote. It is a window into what genuinely family supportive workplaces can look like, and a reminder of how far most employers still have to go.

The documentary, directed by Academy Award-winning filmmaker Morgan Neville, covers the career of Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels through candid conversations with Tina Fey, John Mulaney, Andy Samberg, Conan O’Brien, Chris Rock, and Rudolph. But the nursery story is the detail that working parents are talking about.

A Boss Who Responded To Pregnancy With Action

Morgan Neville described Michaels’ attitude toward parenthood in unmistakable terms. “When somebody has a child, Lorne is so happy for them,” Neville told People. That happiness was not just emotional. According to the documentary, it translated into a concrete offer: carving out a dedicated space inside one of New York City’s most famous buildings so that Rudolph could keep her baby nearby during one of television’s most grueling weekly production schedules.

SNL does not run on a nine-to-five calendar. The show operates on a relentless cycle of writing sessions, table reads, rehearsals, and live broadcasts. For a pregnant cast member or a new mother, that environment could easily become untenable without active support from leadership. Michaels’ instinct was to ask what the building could offer her, not what she owed the show.

Why Workplace Nurseries and Family Benefits Matter

On-site nurseries and employer-sponsored childcare are among the most powerful tools a company can offer working parents, yet they remain rare. Research consistently shows that access to childcare near or at the workplace reduces absenteeism, improves employee retention, and lowers the stress burden on parents of infants and toddlers. For mothers in particular, the availability of a nearby space to nurse or care for a newborn can be the difference between returning to work and leaving the workforce entirely.

The benefits extend beyond the parents themselves. Children whose caregivers are less stressed and financially stable tend to have better developmental outcomes in the early years. When employers treat pregnancy and new parenthood as a logistical problem to solve together rather than as an inconvenience to be accommodated minimally, the ripple effects reach the whole family.

Workplace family support can take many forms beyond a dedicated nursery. Subsidized childcare, flexible scheduling, lactation rooms, paid parental leave, and backup care programs all fall under the broader umbrella of what family advocates describe as family-friendly employment. The common thread is that the employer treats the employee’s role as a parent as something worth investing in, not something to be quietly tolerated.

What to Look for in a Family Supportive Employer

If you are pregnant or planning to grow your family, it is worth evaluating your workplace before your due date, not after. Here are the kinds of policies and gestures that signal genuine support:

On-site or subsidized childcare: Some larger employers operate their own childcare facilities or partner with nearby centers to offer employees discounted rates.

Lactation accommodations: Federal law in the United States requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a private space for nursing parents, but the quality of those accommodations varies enormously.

Flexible scheduling and remote options: The ability to adjust start times, work from home on certain days, or compress a workweek can make an enormous difference for parents managing infant care.

Paid parental leave: The length and structure of leave policies signal how seriously a company takes the transition into parenthood.

Manager attitude: Policies on paper mean little if direct supervisors treat pregnancy as an inconvenience. The Michaels story is notable precisely because the support came from the top.

Why This Moment Deserves More Than A Footnote

The entertainment industry is not typically held up as a model of family friendliness. Long hours, unpredictable schedules, and project-based employment make it a difficult environment for parents. That makes Michaels’ gesture more striking, not less. If a live television production running on a weekly deadline could find room, literally, for a cast member’s baby, the argument that other workplaces simply cannot afford to prioritize family support becomes harder to sustain.

Stories about celebrity pregnancies at famous workplaces tend to be treated as entertainment news and quickly forgotten. This one deserves a longer shelf life. The nursery offer is a small data point in a much larger conversation about what it costs families when employers do the minimum, and what becomes possible when they do more.

For pregnant women and parents of young children navigating their own workplaces right now, the most useful takeaway from the Lorne documentary may have nothing to do with Saturday Night Live at all. It is simply this: a boss who responds to your pregnancy by asking how the workplace can support you is not a unicorn. It is a standard worth demanding.

When I was pregnant with my first daughter, I FaceTimed with an old friend, and he immediately said, “Wow! You have that pregnancy glow!” The compliment took me aback because I hadn’t noticed it yet, and I was also excited because it was another positive perk of my happy pregnancy.

While no pregnancy is the same, the pregnancy glow is a symptom that many welcome. The dewy look can make a woman look radiant, hydrated, and nurtured. Pregnant moms may be tired and sore with little sleep, but at least some have an undeniable glow to their beauty!

Although looking hydrated and youthful while pregnant is a perk, it’s hard not to wonder why women get this so-called glow during pregnancy. Even more interesting, what happens to the pregnancy glow after the baby arrives? 

Experts weigh in on a pregnant woman’s pregnancy glow, where it goes, and if women only “glow” when pregnant with a specific gender.

What Is Pregnancy Glow? (And Why Does It Happen?)

First things first, what exactly is the pregnancy glow that onsets a brighter tone, smoother texture, and dewy finish in pregnant women? Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine Catherine Caponero told The Cleveland Clinic that the physical changes in a woman’s body during pregnancy can trigger a natural glow.

According to Caponero, there are two main reasons why women get a pregnancy glow:

An Increase of Hormones: Pregnancy can introduce new hormones. The surge of hormones can sometimes produce more oils on the skin, making it look plump, dewy, and glow-y.

• Hormones like estrogen, progesterone, and hCG are the main culprits behind a pregnancy glow, according to experts at BabyCenter.

Increased Blood Flow: Blood vessels expand during pregnancy, leading to a rosier complexion.

Caponero shared that women tend to be happier when pregnant, which can lead to a happier, calmer, and overall healthier appearance.

What Experts Say: Experts at Flo backed the increase of hormones and circulation as the culprits for a woman’s stunning pregnancy glow. “Pregnancy causes most women to have improved circulation, which can give them clearer skin. Increased blood flow means more blood in your blood vessels, which makes many women appear flushed.”

Where Does The Glow Go After Women Give Birth?

A woman’s body goes through countless changes after she gives birth. Aside from healing from delivering a baby, she’s also dealing with breastfeeding (or pumping, bottle-feeding, etc), sleep deprivation, and a rollercoaster of hormones. After having a gorgeous pregnancy glow for months, it can be frustrating when that glow fades after birth.

When Does Pregnancy Glow Kick In and Leave?: Experts at HealthLine shared that the pregnancy glow typically becomes noticeable in the second trimester and can last throughout the remainder of the pregnancy. Sadly, the pregnancy glow can leave a few weeks after giving birth because of hormones shifting back to their new normal.

Your pregnancy glow may disappear after giving birth, but the excitement of having a newborn and partaking in all of the firsts with your little one balances the demise of your former glow.

What Experts Say: “The glow of pregnancy — as well as its underlying causes — goes away soon after you give birth. This isn’t a permanent change to your skin.”

Does Every Woman Glow?

As with most side effects and symptoms of pregnancy, the natural glow that creeps in during the second trimester doesn’t affect every woman. Dr. Caponero explained that your body’s reaction to your ever-changing hormones is unique to you.

While one woman may have glossy and smooth skin, another may not. Just like some pregnant women notice stronger nails and hair, while others may have the opposite.

In fact, some women report that the extra oils on their skin caused more breakouts rather than a lush glow.

What Experts Say: “Bodies respond differently to pregnancy … So, just as it’s completely normal to experience pregnancy glow, it’s completely normal to not see it, too.”

Pregnancy Glow And The Sex Of Your Baby

Old wives’ tales are fun to research when you’re pregnant, especially when it comes to the sex of your baby. One sneaky old wives’ tale is that if you have that gorgeous pregnancy glow, you’re most likely having a boy. If your skin is dry and discolored, you’re having a girl.

Popular Old Wives’ Tales:

• If a woman has heartburn throughout her pregnancy, her baby will have a lot of hair.
• A full moon will put a woman into labor.
• Particular cravings equate to a certain gender.

Lo and behold, experts claim that glowing while pregnant doesn’t result in the sex of your child. The increase in blood and rush of hormones is the purpose of that glowing skin, not because your child is a boy.

On a personal note, I had an amazing pregnancy glow during both my girls’ pregnancies, which goes against what the old wives’ tales preach.

What Experts Say: Calla Women’s Health in New York’s Kameelah Phillips, MD, IBCLC, an OB-GYN, told Parents that a pregnancy glow is not linked to having a boy or a girl.