Experiences of Amish and Old Order Mennonite Families in Providing Foster Care for Children

Abstract

This inductive, exploratory research project used thematic analysis to examine the experiences of Amish and Old Order Mennonite (Plain Anabaptist) foster parents in providing foster care to mainstream (non-Plain) children, including factors related to children’s trauma and disabilities, discipline, and families’ perceptions of support from their communities. Through purposive and snowball sampling, researchers gathered data from 24 families in either focus groups or dyad interviews in four U.S. states. The experiences of Plain Anabaptist foster families were characterized by participants as both satisfying and challenging. Plain Anabaptist families were receptive to learning and adapting to provide foster care, especially for babies, young children, and children with disabilities. Research findings illuminate several areas in which those recruiting or working with Plain Anabaptist foster parents should be aware.

Keywords

foster care Amish and Old Order Mennonite qualitative children with trauma and disabilities child discipline

According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS, 2021), 631,832 children were served by the foster care system in the United States in 2020. On September 30, 2020, there were 407,493 children in foster care, of which 182,386 (45%) were placed in a foster family home of a nonrelative (USDHHS, 2021). Foster parents provide shelter and care for children who have been removed from their home for reasons such as child abuse, neglect, or substance abuse. There is a scarcity of literature describing the experiences of foster parents providing foster care to children (Cooley et al., 2017), yet what is available describes a wide range of experiences, from transformative to stressful (Lopez et al., 2022).

This study’s findings suggest child welfare systems explore the possibility of Amish and Old Order Mennonite (Plain Anabaptist) families providing foster care for children. Plain Anabaptist foster parents are providing care for children from outside their religious communities. This article describes Plain Anabaptist parents’ experiences caring for foster children, including caring for children with disabilities and/or a history of trauma, and families’ experiences with child discipline and community support.

“Plain Anabaptist” includes Plain Mennonites and Amish. “Plain Mennonite” includes Old Order and conservative Mennonite groups, while the term “Amish” includes Old Order and New Order Amish. While many Plain Anabaptist families care for “mainstream” (i.e., non-Plain) children who have been abused and/or neglected and are in out-of-home placements (Amish America, 2019), there are no empirical research studies in the peer-reviewed literature on the experiences of Plain Anabaptist foster families. The number of Plain Anabaptist families providing foster care is not available but seems to be increasing in the last 10 years based on anecdotal evidence. For example, one Plain Anabaptist email group on adoption had about 100 participants in 2017 and had grown to about 200 participants in 2021 (three Old Order Mennonite adoptive families, personal communication, June 20, 2021). Wee Lambs Adoption Resources, a Plain Anabaptist, tax-exempt organization, offers an annual Midwest Adoption Picnic held in rotating locations such as Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Ohio, which had about 350 attendees in 2016 and about 750 attendees in 2021 (C. Weaver, personal communication, July 12, 2021; three Old Order Mennonite adoptive families, personal communication, June 20, 2021).

Plain Anabaptists’ occupation, transportation, clothing, home style, language, and family size vary considerably between groups and in comparison to mainstream society. Many Plain Mennonite groups and nearly all Amish groups use horse-and-buggy for transportation. Their dress is distinctive, most do not utilize public utilities, and most educate their children in their own parochial schools and through eighth grade. Plain Anabaptist life is based on their faith, informed by the Bible, and directed by their church community and leaders (Harder, 2021; Kraybill et al., 2018). As of June 2022, there were 373,620 Amish in North America, including 32 states and four Canadian provinces (Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College, 2022). “The Amish are growing faster than almost any other subculture, religious or non-religious, in North America” (Donnermeyer et al., 2013, p. 74). Due to large family sizes and at least 85% of its members remaining in the faith, the Amish population doubles about every 20 years (Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College, 2022). See Harder et al. (2023) and Harder (2022) for more information on the diversity among Plain Anabaptist communities and a summary of their cultural characteristics.

Around 90% of children in foster care have experienced a traumatic event, and around half of those children have been exposed to four or more traumas, such as neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and drug abuse by a parent (Fratto, 2016; USDHHS, 2021). Removal of a child from their biological home adds to this trauma.

Children who have been exposed to trauma and then experience mitigating factors, such as attachment to healthy adults and social support, may fare well. Quite often though, trauma has negative effects on children which can manifest in hard-to-manage behaviors in foster care. Cox et al. (2011) reported that 25% to 62% of children in foster care have emotional and behavioral problems. Children who have been exposed to trauma often struggle with the need for instant gratification, a fixed mindset, impulsivity, aggressive behavior, inattentiveness, and uncooperativeness. They may exhibit problematic behaviors such as self-harm, property damage, sexual acting out, substance abuse, and running away (Cooley et al., 2015; Vanderwill et al., 2021). While many factors can influence children’s negative behaviors, foster parents can have a significant role to play in the mitigation of trauma behaviors (Lopez et al., 2022).

Children with disabilities are more likely to have trauma-related experiences, such as abuse or neglect (Hatzikiriakidis et al., 2023). (The term “disabilities” in this article is inclusive of physical, mental, and social-emotional diagnoses and impairments.) Children with disabilities are overrepresented in foster care (Brown & Rodger, 2009; Slayter, 2016); providing care to this population comes with unique challenges, such as more frequent visits to providers and difficulty finding formal and informal supports. Foster parents cite fostering children with behavioral/emotional problems as a leading stressor (Buehler et al., 2003). When agencies do not reimburse foster parents for expenses related to meeting these challenges, parents may not want or be able to continue care (Brown & Rodger, 2009).

Supports for foster parents can look like social networks that link them to critical resources such as food, housing, and financial and employment assistance but also manifest equally as respite childcare, emotional support, and empathy. These may be provided through an agency or less formally from other foster parents, faith community members, and family members (Cooley et al., 2015). Buehler et al. (2003) cited support from family members as a key factor for foster parent success.

While foster parents acknowledge rewards for caring for children with a history of trauma and disabilities—such as gaining knowledge about the child’s disability and experiencing feelings of competency when advocating for children’s needs (Brown & Rodger, 2009)—they do not always receive adequate support and training (Vanderwill et al., 2021). Foster parents sometimes report not receiving detailed or accurate information regarding the existence or scope of the needs of children placed in their care, thereby leaving them underprepared to care for the children (Brown & Rodger, 2009; Buehler et al., 2003). Foster parents often have difficulty setting boundaries and disciplining children who display negative behaviors, leaving foster families feeling frustrated and ineffective (Lopez et al., 2022).

Providing care for children with significant needs in combination with stresses from any negative interactions with child welfare professionals and interactions with the child’s biological family may play a role in placement disruptions (Leathers et al., 2019). Most children who are in foster care for at least 24 months experience three or more placement changes (Vanderwill et al., 2021). Placement disruptions can be detrimental to children in foster care, as they must adjust to a new setting and new caregivers during an already turbulent time (Vanderwill et al., 2021).

Disciplining children in foster care is another factor that may contribute to stress for foster parents and placement disruptions for the child. To become licensed, foster parents must commit to not utilizing physical or degrading punishment on children in foster care (Administration for Children and Families, 2019). How foster parents discipline can have a significant influence on the child’s behavior (De Robertis & Litrownik, 2004). While the extant literature on corporal punishment in foster care is minimal, caregivers’ use of “harsh discipline” in general has been associated with aggressive, hyperactive, and oppositional behaviors in children (De Robertis & Litrownik, 2004). Euser et al. (2014) reported youth in out-of-home care may face an increased risk of corporal punishment if the youth are exhibiting elevated behaviors and foster parents have not received effective training. How a foster parent disciplines a child in foster care may be influenced by many factors, including the foster parent’s religious beliefs (Helder et al., 2020). Some conservative Christian beliefs hold that a child must learn to submit to the parent in learning how to submit to God, which is accomplished by exerting dominance over the child in the form of corporal punishment to establish a sense of order in the home (Yang & Ortega, 2016). Most Plain Anabaptist parents place a high value on discipline, including the use of corporal punishment (Harder, 2021; Kraybill et al., 2018).

While the literature addresses the effects of placement disruptions on children in foster care, less attention has been paid to the effects on the foster family. Some foster parents have indicated feelings of grief when a child is removed from their care, which can manifest as loneliness, difficulty detaching emotionally, and being dismissed by others in the child welfare arena. In addition, some parents describe their biological children’s grief when foster children are removed from the home (Newquist et al., 2020). Professionals may consider these feelings to be misplaced because they think it unwise for foster parents to grow too attached to children who may be in their home for a temporary period. This, however, is contrary to the foster children’s great need for attachment. Foster parents and foster children should be given adequate time to process transitions to ease the emotional loss (Buehler et al., 2003).

Method

Plain Anabaptist families providing foster care to non-Plain Anabaptist children through U.S. government and nonprofit agencies comprise the sample for this research. To gain an understanding of Plain families’ experiences, researchers followed a grounded theory approach and gathered data directly from Plain Anabaptist families (Creswell, 2017). A social constructivist approach to data collection and analysis allowed researchers to enter this inductive, cross-cultural endeavor with flexibility and openness to Plain Anabaptist families’ unique and complex perspectives and realities (Charmaz, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Furthermore, assuming a foundation of ecological systems theory and approaching this community with cultural humility allowed researchers to view the experiences of this hard-to-access group with acceptance, gaining trust among its members. Ethics approval for this study was provided by the University of Nebraska Medical Center (IRB # 513–19-EX).

The researchers chose focus groups as the primary source for data collection, as Plain people are community-based in nearly all aspects of their lives. Plain people are generally reluctant to share with people outside their religious group, so researchers hoped that sharing in the presence of others with whom they were familiar would facilitate the data collection process as well as generate rich data. Focus groups also allowed for informal assistance with language, as participants clarified words and circumstances for each other as needed. Researchers invited mother–father dyads to participate in focus groups. Families made the choice to participate in a focus group with other families or to meet with researchers with just their spouse.

Focus group questions were developed in response to researchers’ review of the professional literature and researchers’ child welfare expertise. Researchers reworded questions slightly when participants did not understand them. While the order in which questions were asked changed based on participants’ engagement, all questions were asked of all participants.

Researchers worked to gain access to this hard-to-reach ethnic group through snowball sampling and word of mouth, personally inviting families to focus groups. Using emails, phone calls, letters, and word of mouth, approximately 35 families were invited to participate in focus groups. Families invited and referred other foster families, and community and mental health professionals who serve the community also made referrals.

Inclusion criteria for participation included families identifying as a Plain Anabaptist community member where the mother dressed “plainly” (conservative and modest dress and shoes, a head covering). Participants had fostered and adopted children through public and private agencies and had received training and participated in a home study for domestic foster care. Families who had only biological children or who had engaged only in international adoption were not included.

Focus groups generally lasted 1 to 2 hours, with longer times for groups with more participants. Researchers conducted most groups in one of the participating family’s homes, sitting around a large kitchen table, in a living space, or outdoors. Children were sometimes present or within hearing distance, which provided researchers the opportunity to observe parent–child interactions and children’s behaviors.

Researchers provided written consent to participants prior to the focus groups when possible and at the time of the focus group. When beginning the group, researchers explained the study, including confidentiality, risks, benefits, and use of a voice recorder, with all participants giving verbal consent. Given Plain Anabaptists’ typical reticence to signing agreements, the researchers did not request signed consent (Kraybill et al., 2018).

One or two researchers conducted the focus groups and interview dyads utilizing a semi-structured protocol, with varying order and amount of time spent on questions based on the group’s makeup, experiences, and interests. Researchers asked questions about participants’ motivation for engaging in foster care/adoption and their experiences with the home study and training before inviting participants to share their good and not-so-good experiences in fostering children from outside their faith community. Researchers also invited families to share what they wish social service providers knew about engaging with Plain families and what they would tell other people in their community who may be considering foster care/adoption.

This constructivist study embraced bias, acknowledging the impact of researchers’ backgrounds and experiences. Researchers who collected the data identify as Christians, with one identifying as a more progressive Mennonite than the study participants. All researchers have worked professionally with child welfare and with foster care and adoption more specifically; one researcher has been a foster parent and is an adoptive parent. One researcher is familiar with Plain community faith and values through multiple professional and personal engagements. Researchers utilized analytic memoing throughout the process of study design, data collection and analysis, and writing to acknowledge and reflect on bias and remain as objective as possible.

Data Analysis

Overall, researchers utilized thematic analysis to explore patterns and themes emerging from the transcribed data. More specifically, they used audio transcriptions to code data through initial open and descriptive coding, utilizing attribute coding to capture the demographic characteristics of participants and their families. One researcher utilized subcodes and code mapping to bring structure and hierarchy to existing codes and then repeated the process of coding as the code system matured and as categories and patterns emerged. A second researcher used open coding to compare to and enrich the other researcher’s more in-depth analysis.

Description of Participants

Twenty-four families participated in this investigation, with 11 couples choosing to do dyad interviews, and the remaining 13 couples participating in multi-couple focus groups. Participating families lived in four states, with eight families living in Ohio, seven in Pennsylvania, six in New York, and three in Missouri.

All participants identified as being Plain Anabaptist, with 11 being Old Order Mennonite, five being conservative Mennonite, five being Amish, and three being Amish-Mennonite (three of the conservative Mennonites were Old Order Mennonite when they began fostering children). Half of the 24 families used horse-and-buggy for transportation, and half used cars; three of those using cars had been horse-and-buggy when they began fostering children. All but one of the 24 couples had been married between 9 and 42 years, with an average of 25 years; one family was headed by a single woman. All but four of the 24 families had adopted children they had fostered; most of the remaining four families expressed interest in doing so.

The families had fostered about 15 children each, ranging from 2 to 50 children (with this data missing from two families). Of the 24 families, 18 had adopted an average of three children each, ranging from one to eight children. At least 14 of the families had children born to them, with an average of three biological children in each family, ranging from one to six children. At the time of the focus groups, families had an average of five children born to them or adopted, ranging from zero to eight children (with these data missing from two families). Nearly half of the 24 families had fostered or adopted children who were a race/ethnicity other than White/Caucasian. At least 16 of the 24 families had cared for children with a wide range of significant disabilities.

Results

The experiences of Plain Mennonite and Amish families providing care for non-Plain community children in foster care were characterized by participants as both satisfying and challenging. The most satisfying experiences included witnessing growth and healing in foster children, watching them grow, play, and learn along with other children in their family and community. Challenges experienced by participants included the demands of caring for children with high needs and interacting with the child welfare system. Participants spoke of support they received in their role as foster parents.

Foster Children With Trauma and Disabilities

While we did not ask directly, participants spoke frequently and with emotional intensity about the trauma the children endured before being placed with them. Through their words and stories, foster parents demonstrated the extra care, patience, and understanding they extended to children in the realization of the children’s previous circumstances. Due to the community’s separation from mainstream culture, participants reported an initial lack of understanding regarding the context and circumstances of the trauma children in their care may have experienced. Many participants shared learning about trauma and its impact on a child’s brain and behaviors were the most significant things they learned through their time as foster parents.

Most of the time the child is not trying to be a jerk. They are survivors. [Those skills are] what got them to you. [a mother]

I think that’s another thing where these Mennonites haven’t grown up in these evil communities. We have no concept about where these children came from. [a mother]

Many families placed emphasis on “bonding” with children, even at the expense of their own hurt and grief when children were moved or reunified. They saw attachment as a primary way of dealing with behaviors, seemingly due to their understanding of trauma.

In addition to their trauma history, many children being fostered by Plain families came to their care with significant disabilities. While many of the families had cared for these children, that was not their original intent to go into foster care. Typically, one of the first children placed with them would have a disability, and when that placement went well, caseworkers would continue to place children with disabilities in their home.

Our first set of twins was our first placement, and they were preemies. They came 3 weeks early. So there was a very long list of medical needs, and they came right out of the NICUs. So they pretty much built our file. And that’s the policy now. [a mother]

Many families spoke of newborn infants who were born prematurely or who had significant medical needs. One family spoke of their continued care for a baby despite the medical doctors’ expectations that the child would not survive. The mother explained how she took him home anyway because “I want him to die in somebody’s arms.” This child not only survived but thrived and was later adopted by the family.

Families consistently spoke positively of the medical and mental health professionals where they took the children placed with them for care. They utilized the children’s Medicaid to cover these health care costs.

I have been so blessed with her pediatricians. [Name of pediatricians] will bend over backwards for me. We went and worked with [a regional education agency], we worked with [name of autism center], developmental needs, we worked with the public school. We worked with our private schools, yeah. [a mother]

Many families referred to additional trainings and readings they utilized to learn about the needs of children in their care. Some foster care agencies provided these resources, but many they seemed to have sought out on their own or through other foster families in their community.

I wanted to know all I could learn because once I started realizing that these children are special needs, they cannot be treated just like my little sisters, and nieces, and nephews. These children had to be treated and handled differently. Then I was desperate to learn. [a mother]

Discipline

Amish and Plain Mennonite culture endorses corporal punishment for children, so the inability to spank children in foster care puts Plain foster families in a dilemma. Culturally, children are expected to submit to their parents, and parents to discipline their children as a means of showing love as well as establishing respect and a cohesive family hierarchy. Participants in this study stated they knew they were not allowed to use corporal punishment with children placed with them but expressed that sometimes “spanking is the only thing that works.” They shared their cultural view that spanking a child often leads to positive outcomes, including the child expressing attachment to the parent and improved behavior. When speaking of corporal punishment, participants always indicated their goal was to build a secure attachment with this child. They viewed discipline not as an emotional reaction to a particular situation but rather as a thoughtful and last resort to addressing problematic behaviors in a way they believed considers what is best and safest for the child.

I’m gonna be honest about it, we believe in discipling with a paddle, you know like the Proverbs says, how does it say, there’s a couple. “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” That’s one of the phrases. And we believe in using that with discretion, loving the child, but when they need discipline, I haven’t figured out how to raise children without using discipline. [a father]

Some families spoke of feeling guilty after spanking a foster child. Some spoke of telling their caseworker they had spanked a child, followed by a range of consequences from receiving stern words to not do that again, being “investigated,” and having to sign a statement declaring they would not use spanking in the future.

If he jumps off the chair, and you give him a swat without thinking then you feel guilty the rest of 2 weeks, ‘cause you actually disciplined a foster child. I mean it can be so tough. [a mother]

Some participants recalled confusing messages from workers on what constitutes “corporal punishment,” especially in regard to restraining a child who is experiencing significant negative emotions. One family spoke of being severely reprimanded by a caseworker for holding a child when the child was acting out. Another family in a different focus group shared that they were instructed by their caseworker to hold the child when the child was having a tantrum. Nevertheless, participants said they will usually follow the rules/law—both because they know they are supposed to and because they realize children in foster care have trauma from experiencing abuse. Some families shared that using other methods to discipline the children worked well.

In foster care, you cannot spank. In today’s world, we know that spanking works if it’s done lovingly and in the proper way. But for children who have been broken and abused and just not cared for, children who have been damaged, there are other ways to work with them. [a mother]

Interactions With the Child Welfare System

The use of corporal punishment by Plain communities also directly impacted how participating families interacted with the child welfare system. The fear of being investigated was a particular concern among many Plain foster family participants. Participants felt these investigations were sometimes based on inaccurate assumptions from those in the mainstream community about the way Plain families disciplined and watched over their children. In particular, families attributed their propensity to be investigated as a result of workers not understanding their way of life.

She said to the board, “The Mennonites tend to trust God to watch their children, and don’t supervise like they should.” And I felt like that was discriminating. [a mother referring to the case worker]

Many families had experienced investigations or had heard of other foster families’ experiences of investigations because of circumstances participants viewed as accidents, exaggerations of the circumstances, or false accusations by others, especially birth parents.

He fell off the bed. He had a bruise, and I discovered it on the way to visit the mom. I didn’t realize it was there before. I knew he’d fell off the bed, but I didn’t think anything was wrong. And I reported it in my . . . we had people on our tail. Children’s Services called. I mean, our home was shut down. Yeah, we were scared! And everything ended up, they were afraid we were neglecting them. And so, they had, somebody had to come out and investigate. [a mother]

In turn, some families had a hard time trusting child welfare workers and other mainstream entities, not only because of their culture’s general reticence to engaging with these systems but because of interactions and perceived discrimination from child welfare entities. This led to families feeling a degree of intimidation from those in mainstream systems. This distrust and intimidation manifested as families sometimes not speaking up when they needed help, not engaging with multidisciplinary team meetings, and not notifying workers of what was happening with the foster child. In some cases, families expressed the tension creating an atmosphere of “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to the well-being of the child in care.

Not that you’re trying to hide something. But I’m saying don’t bring it out in the open. If they don’t ask, don’t say anything. [a mother]

Participants spoke to how their past challenges and negative experiences, or those of other Plain families, served as determinants for accepting subsequent placements. Those situations most often noted included the demands of children already in the household, the medical and mental health needs of the child needing placement, and fear of investigation as well as time and costs associated with transportation.

Support for Foster Families

Participants expressed diverse sentiments of support from both mainstream organizations and professionals as well as from their church community. While participants expressed some frustrations regarding child welfare and related systems, they also spoke of the support they felt from individuals in these systems, including health care workers, law enforcement, judges, attorneys, and caseworkers. Support came in many forms, such as waiving fees, feeling understood during investigations or difficult situations, advocating for placements/adoptions, and making an effort to understand and care for their family and way of life. Participants also experienced a lack of support from mainstream systems, including being misunderstood, being taken advantage of, and being discriminated against.

All participants expressed they felt moderate to significant support from their church community and extended family. This support took many forms, including assistance with childcare, bringing meals, and helping with household tasks. While their communities were supportive, participants also shared that their communities did not understand why children were in foster care and what it was like to care for children in foster care. It was sometimes difficult for participants to pinpoint exactly what did not feel supportive, but rather it seemed they noticed and picked up on microaggressions, such as looks or side comments. Families shared about some more outright unsupportive responses in their communities. These negative responses seemed to come mostly from older generations and were mostly around children’s race and trauma-related behaviors, and around their perceptions that the families should care for the children they have and stop taking in more children.

It only makes me a little cranky when he’s 4 years old already and my uncle walks by and says, “Can he speak Dutch?” I’m like, what, do you think? I just don’t know, they’re just kind of ignorant some. They just don’t know. [a mother]

Given these experiences, participants often cited other foster families within the Plain community (including outside of their own local community) as being their greatest source of support and understanding. Many families also expressed that it got easier over the years as more families in their community began fostering children.

We were probably foster parents for close to 8 or 9 years, before we went to our first foster/adoption retreat, and we cried. [a father]

That was the first support that we ever had. [a mother]

In concluding each focus group or interview, we asked participants the following question: “What would you tell other people in your community who are considering foster care/adoption?” Many participants responded with a resounding “Go for it!” and then, after a pause, continued with but “be prepared” and consider your motivations.

Discussion

Plain Mennonite and Amish families providing care for non-Plain community children in foster care shared both positive and challenging experiences. Their narratives gave evidence to their desire to provide loving homes for children while simultaneously balancing the often conflicting expectations of the foster care agency and their cultural beliefs. Mothers and fathers alike were clearly invested in caring for the children placed in their homes, as evidenced by their willingness to step outside of their community to not only engage with the foster care system but also to learn new ways of parenting that may be contrary to their cultural practices. During focus group interactions, it was quite apparent that parents had spent considerable time with the children placed with them, with participants frequently introducing children and reporting on each of their children’s unique needs, preferences, and trauma histories. Often, this level of understanding required participants to seek help and resources outside of their community, a task Plain Anabaptists would find culturally daunting.

This high level of attunement seemed particularly acute when describing foster children with disabilities. Foster parents from Plain communities often found themselves caring for young children with medical and/or mental health needs that required extra levels of attention. Because mothers seldom work outside the home in Plain communities, they may have more availability to care for high-needs children (Brown & Rodger, 2009). At the same time, Plain community parents often lack the “real-world” knowledge of trauma endured by most children in foster care. While Plain Anabaptist communities are certainly not without trauma, participants conveyed that the traumatic situations the children in their care have experienced are often foreign to Plain foster parents, as are trauma-informed parenting strategies. For this reason and parallel to the findings of Lopez et al. (2022), participants spoke to the importance of training in their preparation to become foster parents as well as their pursuit of continued knowledge. The trauma and needs of children in foster care also can lead Plain foster families to feelings of separation, judgment, and lack of support from their close-knit communities, due not only to the children’s behavior issues and needs but also the community’s general lack of understanding of trauma and its effects (Brown & Rodger, 2009). This potential loss of social capital makes training and support from the professional community even more vital.

Methods for disciplining children in foster care also placed Plain Anabaptist foster families in a space of incongruence with themselves, their church community, the foster care agency, and their desire to provide the best care possible to children. When children in foster care exhibited difficult behaviors, Plain foster families spoke about utilizing the behavior management techniques they had learned in training. They recalled coming to understand through training that children who have experienced the trauma of abuse will not respond to spanking like their biological children. In addition, they recalled agreeing not to spank when they signed up to foster children.

At the same time, most families admitted there were circumstances in which corporal punishment had to be used. For example, if they perceived the behavior management techniques taught in training to be ineffective, they would sometimes resort to what they thought would work best—spanking or similar forms of corporal punishment (Lopez et al., 2022). After utilizing this form of discipline, some spoke of feeling guilty for breaking the rules of the foster care agency. They also felt stripped of a tool they believed worked well in curbing difficult behaviors and showing love to children, leading them to feel disconnected from their faith community. The resulting isolation, combined with the demands of parenting children with many needs puts these parents in a difficult situation and may leave foster children vulnerable.

Foster parents consistently spoke of parent/child attachment improving as a direct result of corporal punishment. Given foster parents’ desired but relatively limited understanding of trauma, this is potentially concerning. While children in foster care may indeed show signs of love and affection after an instance of corporal punishment, this may be out of fear or as a survival response learned from their past traumatic experiences. This is an area that could benefit from additional investigation. Due to this vulnerability, it is imperative for caseworkers and other professionals to equip Plain Anabaptist foster parents with the tools and support necessary to establish a safe environment for all children in their care. This also underscores the need for a close working relationship with foster care workers as well as ongoing support and training (Lopez et al., 2022).

Plain family participants expressed feelings of anxiety and helplessness in wanting to stay connected to their traditions and communities while also fulfilling the expectations of the child welfare system—all while caring for and keeping children safe. Interactions with child welfare agencies and other institutions unfamiliar to Plain communities also greatly influenced foster parents’ experiences of caring for children in foster care. Participants’ responses demonstrated discrepancies between expectations of these institutions and the norms of their faith and culture, especially around discipline. In a culture that values conformity, their interaction with these entities, combined with the stress of caring for non-Plain children in foster care, also unintentionally put them in a position of nonconformity with their church community. Having to simultaneously navigate two drastically different cultures amplified negative experiences. Many Plain families expressed anxiety about being misunderstood, and thus the foster agency questioned their ability to provide a safe home and adequate care for children.

While many foster families may experience fear of a child welfare investigation, Plain communities aim to exist outside of mainstream institutions, and therefore study participants seemed to be particularly alert for circumstances that could lead to an investigation. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that this hypervigilance, in turn, affected participants’ parenting and family life. Their communities’ lack of understanding about trauma and different ideas about child discipline practices put some study participants at odds not only with child welfare policies but also with their faith community. This seemed to result in families sometimes feeling lonely or isolated, even when being among others in their otherwise close-knit communities. Participants seemed to minimize these responses from their community members when speaking with researchers. It is especially noteworthy that participants shared about these microaggressions, as members of Plain communities would not typically be critical of others within their community when speaking to outsiders.

As with any study, this qualitative research project has both strengths and limitations. As the focus of this paper is specifically on the experiences of foster parents, one significant limitation is that the voices of caseworkers, biological parents, and children are not included. Future research should explore the perspectives of these groups to gain a better understanding of the impacts of Plain Anabaptist care of non-Plain children.

While the lead researcher has spent considerable time with Plain Anabaptist families, the exposure of the other researchers was limited to listening to audio recordings and extensive reading and discussion. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in English, which is not the first language of the participants. In addition, the use of both focus groups and interviews, according to participant comfort, led to a non-standardized method of data collection.

Researchers did not calculate intercoder reliability given the exploratory nature of the study and the conversational nature of the semi-structured focus groups (Campbell et al., 2013). Researchers reconciled coding discrepancies and sought intercoder agreement through discussion. They conducted several rounds of member checks with participants, assuring researchers they had captured the essence of families’ experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted data collection. Facilitators conducted two interviews by phone, but this practice was halted due to difficulty with technology (poor speakerphone quality).

The sample includes families with diverse characteristics, including religious affiliation, geographic location, years of experience, and constellation of birth, foster, and adoptive children. Facilitators did not request numeric data from participants such as age of parents or children, race/ethnicity of parents, number or length of placements, and race/ethnicity or specific diagnostic details about children’s disabilities. Also, due to the voluntary nature of data collection and nonprobability snowball sampling, the participants are not necessarily representative of all Plain foster parents or Plain families in general.

Implications for Practice

This study’s findings support the recommendation for child welfare systems to explore the possibility of Plain Mennonite and Amish families providing foster care for children. Plain Anabaptist families are receptive to learning and adapting to provide foster care, especially for babies, young children, and children with disabilities. While Plain Anabaptist families may be potentially well suited to caring for children with disabilities, they will need additional training and support to ensure safe placements for children in their care. Child welfare workers should be transparent about diagnoses, treatment, and care needs when placing children with any foster family, regardless of their cultural or faith identity. Workers should also offer emotional and social support for foster parents, as well as ongoing training on trauma-informed parenting to help alleviate stress and, in turn, reduce placement disruptions for children in foster care. Plain foster parents seem particularly open to receiving support from other foster parents, especially those in other Plain Anabaptist communities.

Discipline is another area in which child welfare organizations should be clear about expectations and provide ample support and education when placing children in Plain Anabaptist homes. Education regarding trauma and alternative discipline techniques may be a successful avenue for curbing parents’ use of corporal punishment with children in foster care. In addition, child welfare workers should work to gain trust and maintain ongoing communication with Plain resource parents to stay abreast of both parent and child needs during the duration of the placement.

Perhaps one of the most important ways Plain foster parents felt supported was through the efforts of mainstream “English” agencies honoring and making attempts to learn about Plain culture. Through their experience of feeling like an “other,” they may be uniquely situated to provide empathy to children with similar experiences, if provided with culturally sensitive training and education. Further research is needed to discover effective and culturally sensitive recruitment strategies and training as well as to hear the voices of caseworkers, biological parents, and children.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, for support in carrying out this research.

Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jeanette Harder

References

Administration for Children and Families. (2019). National model foster family home licensing standards (Information Memorandum No. ACYF-CB-IM-19-01). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/im1901

Amish America. (2019, January 8). A closer look at Amish fostering & adoption. https://amishamerica.com/a-closer-look-at-amish-fostering-adoption

Brown

J. D.

Rodger

(2009). Children with disabilities: Problems faced by foster parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.05.007

Buehler

Cox

M. E.

Cuddeback

(2003). Foster parents’ perceptions of factors that promote or inhibit successful fostering. Qualitative Social Work, 2(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325003002001281

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

Cooley

M. E.

Farineau

H. M.

Mullis

A. K.

(2015). Child behaviors as a moderator: Examining the relationship between foster parent supports, satisfaction, and intent to continue fostering. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.007

Cooley

M. E.

Thompson

H. M.

Wojciak

A. S.

(2017). Risk, resilience, and complexity: Experiences of foster parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.030

Cox

M. E.

Cherry

D. J.

Orme

J. G.

(2011). Measuring the willingness to foster children with emotional and behavioral problems. Child & Youth Services Review, 33(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.012

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

11.

De Robertis

M. T.

Litrownik

A. J

. (2004). The experience of foster care: Relationship between foster parent disciplinary approaches and aggression in a sample of young foster children. Child Maltreatment, 9(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559503260402

12.

Donnermeyer

J. F.

Anderson

Cooksey

E. C.

(2013). The Amish population: County estimates and settlement patterns. Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies, 1(1), 72–109.

13.

Euser

Alink

L. R. A.

Tharner

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

(2014). Out of home placement to promote safety? The prevalence of physical abuse in residential and foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 37, 64–70. https://doi.10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.12.002

14.

Fratto

C. M.

(2016). Trauma-informed care for youth in foster care. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 30(3), 439–446. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.007

15.

Harder

(2021). Understanding and partnering with Amish communities to keep children safe. Child Welfare, 99(1), 69–91.

16.

Harder

(2022). Protecting Amish children through understanding and relationship. In Altaras

Penner

(Eds.), Resistance: Confronting violence, power, and abuse within peace churches (pp. 174–187). Institute of Mennonite Studies.

17.

Harder

Bharwani

Gabel

(2023). Inviting Plain Mennonite and Amish families to provide foster care for children. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 17, 990–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2022.2128506

18.

Hatzikiriakidis

O’Connor

Savaglio

Skouteris

Green

(2023). The interconnectedness of disability and trauma in foster and kinship care: The importance of trauma-informed care. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70, 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1921126

19.

Helder

E. J.

Gunnoe

M. L.

Timmermans

(2020). Religious motivation to adopt as a predictor of adoptive family structure, parental discipline, and outcomes. Adoption Quarterly, 23(3), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2020.1790451

20.

Kraybill

D. B.

Johnson-Weiner

K. M.

Nolt

S. M.

(2018). The Amish. Johns Hopkins University Press.

21.

Leathers

S. J.

Spielfogel

J. E.

Geiger

Barnett

Vande Voort

B. L.

(2019). Placement disruption in foster care: Children’s behavior, foster parent support, and parenting experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.012

22.

Lopez

Cooley

M. E.

Thompson

H. M.

Newquist

(2022). Parenting behaviors and parental stress among foster parents. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 31, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221104119

23.

Newquist

Ladd

L. D.

Cooley

M. E.

(2020). Processing the removal and managing the moves or removals of foster children: A qualitative exploration of foster parents’ experiences. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37, 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00652-w

24.

Slayter

(2016). Youth with disabilities in the United States child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 64, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.012

25.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

26.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). The AFCARS report (Report No. 28). https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/afcarsreport28.pdf

27.

Vanderwill

L. A.

Salazar

A. M.

Jenkins

Larwelle

McMahon

A. K.

Day

Haggerty

(2021). Systematic literature review of foster and adoptive caregiver factors for increasing placement stability and permanency. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 15(4), 487–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2020.1760176

28.

Yang

J. L.

Ortega

(2016). Bureaucratic neglect and oppression in child welfare: Historical precedent and implications for current practice. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33, 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-016-0446-4

29.

Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, Elizabethtown College. (2022). Amish population profile. https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/statistics/amish-population-profile-2022/