Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 May 29;64(2):e70044. doi: 10.1111/famp.70044

Dyadic Reports of Interparental Relationship Quality and Intentions to Continue Fostering Among Coupled Foster Caregivers

Evin Winkelman Richardson 1,✉, Jacquelyn K Mallette 2, Ted G Futris 1, Rachel Brown 1, Jessica Starke 1, Shuangyue Cui 1, Lydia Shepherd 1
PMCID: PMC12123165  PMID: 40443014

ABSTRACT

The United States is in a foster care crisis with nearly 400,000 children in need of care and not enough foster homes to fill this need. Therefore, recruiting and retaining high‐quality foster care homes is essential for the placement stability and well‐being of some of our society's most vulnerable children. For foster caregivers in a couple relationship, the health of the couple and coparenting relationship may play a major role in their well‐being and satisfaction, influencing their retention. Guided by existing literature and the sound house theory (Gottman and Silver 2015), the current study employs latent profile analysis to examine the interparental relationship quality of 79 different‐sex foster caregiver couples, potential covariates of their interparental relationship quality, and their intent to continue fostering for the next 12 months. Three groups of foster caregiver couples emerged where (1) both partners reported high interparental relationship quality, (2) both partners reported moderate relationship quality, and (3) fathers reported moderate relationship quality and mothers reported low relationship quality. Couple and foster caregiver demographic characteristics were not associated with foster caregiver couple groups. Foster mothers in groups where foster fathers reported moderate interparental relationship quality and mothers reported low interparental relationship quality reported significantly lower intentions to continue fostering. These findings have potential implications for foster caregiver screening and expanding formal support resources to promote retention. Future research is needed with larger and generalizable samples to further assess the efficacy of couple relationship education on relationship quality and retention of foster caregiver couples.

Keywords: coparenting relationship quality, couple relationship quality, foster care, foster care retention

1. Introduction

Foster care is the temporary housing and caregiving of children whose biological parent(s) or guardian(s) are unable to provide safe, stable care. Foster care serves children who experience a wide array of mistreatment or lack of care, including abuse, neglect, parental substance misuse, parental incarceration, or the death of parents or caregivers. At the end of 2022, there were 368,500 children in foster care in the United States (Administration for Children and Families 2024). Of the children placed in foster care, 32% are placed in the care of a relative, 45% are in nonrelative foster care, and 23% are in group homes, pre‐adoptive homes, institutions, or have run away (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2018). For those placed in a relative or non‐relative home, there are a variety of family structures, including foster homes headed by one adult, a married or unmarried couple, and families that may or may not include biological or adopted children as well. The health, quality, and stability of the home where children are placed is an important determinant of the child's well‐being and adjustment (Konijn et al. 2019; Rubin et al. 2007).

One aspect of the quality of a foster family headed by a couple is the health of the couple relationship. It can be assumed that a large portion of children in foster care are placed in a household headed by a couple, although there are no available national data in the United States reporting how many foster caregivers are married or in a couple relationship. There are many unique challenges for foster caregivers related to foster care that differ from non‐fostering households, including supporting permanency plans, managing both ambiguous loss (Boss 1999) and ambiguous gain (Jensen 2021) for the child in foster care and family, and supporting relationships between children and their families (Buehler et al. 2006). Further, foster families must plan for their foster child's future living arrangements, be able to manage and handle feelings of loss when a child is reunified or placed in a different home, and understand that their foster child's birth parents are an important part of that child's life. Therefore, foster caregiver couples need to be skilled, competent, and well‐trained in many ways to be able to provide adequate care to the children placed in their home (Buehler et al. 2006). In addition to being highly trained and skilled, foster caregivers also need to be able to provide a home environment that includes strong, healthy relationships between the adults in the household, between adults and children, and between siblings in order to increase stability, provide positive models for relationships, and provide a healthy, positive environment overall. However, the challenges that foster caregivers experience have been found to lead to burnout and a reduction in foster caregiver retention.

The child welfare system, including foster care, has come under criticism, including lack of placement stability (Konijn et al. 2019), shortage of foster caregiver families (DeGarmo, n.d.), and lack of effective training of foster caregivers (Cooley et al. 2019a). In the current study, we propose that foster caregiver couples' interparental relationship quality may be associated with foster caregiver retention, in which case directing resources and training to maintain and/or strengthen their couple relationship (e.g., through couple relationship education) may help increase placement stability and reduce foster caregiver attrition. More specifically, we examine different groups (i.e., profiles) of foster caregiver couples' interparental relationship quality as indicated by fathers' and mothers' reports of couple relationship skills, overall couple relationship quality, and perceived coparenting support. Next, we aim to determine what, if any, foster caregiver individual and couple characteristics may be associated with group membership. Finally, we aim to determine if interparental relationship quality group membership is associated with intentions to continue fostering 1 year later.

1.1. Foster Caregiver Retention

Foster caregivers often face myriad challenges that are associated with low foster caregiver retention rates. While no recent national data are available regarding foster caregiver retention, data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2017 reflect that the annual turnover rate for foster caregivers is approximately 30%–50% (National Foster Youth Institute 2017). Further, most foster caregivers spend only between 8 and 14 months fostering, leading children in foster care to endure multiple placements and moves (Gibbs and Wildfire 2007). Low retention rates are especially concerning given the demand for stable homes for foster children across the United States (Administration for Children and Families 2024) and the costs related to training and supporting foster caregivers. As more foster caregivers decide to discontinue fostering, there are fewer stable and safe homes for the substantial number of children in need of foster care. This shortage in foster homes puts the foster care system in the United States in crisis, as there are not enough placements for children who need non‐relative foster care, often leading to placement in lower‐quality foster homes, group homes, or other less‐thanthan‐ideal placements. Indeed, foster caregiver retention is important because it may contribute to child placement stability, which is associated with increased child well‐being (Konijn et al. 2019; Meloy and Phillips 2012). Further, positive relationships between children in foster care and their caregivers are associated with children's increased feelings of well‐being and safety (Fox and Berrick 2007). Retention can also improve foster caregiver experience, as foster caregivers report greater satisfaction when they continue to provide for their foster child's needs and engage in loving interactions with them (Geiger et al. 2013). Increasing foster caregiver retention also reduces costs for the foster care system, as the foster system would be alleviated from having more caregivers to recruit, license, and train (Hanlon et al. 2021).

Foster caregivers report many challenges when navigating the foster care system that are associated with reduced retention (Geiger et al. 2013; Leathers et al. 2019). These include difficulties with agency involvement and communication with social workers (Murray et al. 2010; Nesmith 2020), child behavioral problems (Cooley et al. 2019b), grief and loss when a child leaves the home (Hebert et al. 2013; Richardson et al. 2022), and family stressors (e.g., couple relationship issues; issues with biological or adopted children). Given the constant need for stable foster care homes, better understanding the factors contributing to foster caregiver retention can inform and advance research‐based interventions and effective policy to bolster retention rates (Mallette and Elmore‐Li 2024). For example, Hanlon et al. (2021) discussed factors that have been found to influence foster caregiver retention and found that certain personal attributes, such as commitment to the role, external locus of control, and their own personal motivation for fostering were associated with retention. More specifically, those who were more likely to continue fostering felt higher commitment, had more perceived control over situations, and were motivated by a sense of love within their family unit and a sense of collective responsibility were more likely to continue fostering. One potential factor for retention for fostering households headed by a couple is a strong interparental relationship, which has not been examined as thoroughly (Buehler et al. 2003; Richardson et al. 2020).

1.2. Interparental Relationship Quality

The quality of the interparental relationship includes the quality of both the couple and coparenting relationships between a couple who is parenting at least one child together. Couple relationship quality refers to how positively individuals perceive their relationship (Morry et al. 2010). It is a dyadic process that considers myriad characteristics of a romantic relationship such as the couple's communication and conflict management skills (Stanley et al. 2002), relationship satisfaction (Farooqi 2014), and inter‐partner support (Goldberg and Carlson 2014). Couple relationships that promote well‐being are considered to be affectionate (Kamp‐Dush and Amato 2005), nurturant (Goleman 2006) and provide a feeling of satisfaction within the relationship (Johnson and Anderson 2013). Couple relationship quality is associated with adult well‐being (Kamp‐Dush and Amato 2005), which can impact other family relationships and, in turn, the overall stability of the family and well‐being of children in the home (Jiménez‐Picón et al. 2021). These spillover effects of the couple's relationship quality may be especially impactful for foster families.

In general, a large body of literature, grounded in the emotional security hypothesis (Davies and Cummings 1994), suggests that poor couple relationship quality (e.g., higher conflict and discord) is linked to more behavioral problems and maladjustment among children in the home (Cummings and Davies 2002). The emotional security hypothesis posits that children's emotional security is heavily influenced by their experiences in observing their parents' marital conflict. While this has mainly been observed for non‐foster families, the observation of interparental relationship health is likely to also have strong implications for the well‐being of children in foster care. In fact, couple relationship quality may be especially crucial for the mental and physical health of children in foster care due to the challenging nature of foster care families where children have poor physical and mental health compared to the general population (Turney and Wildeman 2016). Moreover, the emotional strain experienced by foster caregivers can put their relationship at risk of conflict or separation, potentially affecting their likelihood of continuing as foster caregivers (Geiger et al. 2013). Some foster caregivers have reported not being able to tell their families about their foster care experiences, and not having enough time for intimacy due to the responsibilities of foster care (Mallette et al. 2020). In turn, these relational challenges have been identified in qualitative research with foster caregivers as deterrents from taking in new foster children and continuing fostering altogether (Geiger et al. 2013; Mallette et al. 2020; Mallette and Elmore‐Li 2024).

Coparenting relationship quality is similar to couple quality in that it is a relationship between the same two people, but coparenting relationships only focus on the interactions related to the child(ren) in their care. Coparenting relationship quality refers to how well parents work together in the child‐rearing process, characterized by factors such as mutual support, cooperation, and frequency of conflict regarding children. The quality of the coparenting relationship has been linked to both child and parent adjustment (Choi et al. 2019; Richardson et al. 2020). For instance, children and adolescents with parents who report low levels of support and frequent conflict in their coparenting relationship exhibit higher internalizing and externalizing problems, decreasing their overall well‐being (Feinberg et al. 2007; Parkes et al. 2019). Furthermore, households with more supportive coparenting also maintain better mental health outcomes for children who reside in such homes (Teubert and Pinquart 2010). For foster caregiver couples, good mental health and high couple relationship quality before their first foster placement have been linked to higher coparenting relationship quality (Orme and Combs‐Orme 2014). In turn, high coparenting relationship quality may increase the likelihood of placement stability, which may positively impact the well‐being of current and future children placed in their care (Buehler et al. 2006).

While foster caregiver retention is a complex issue, prior research demonstrates that positive couple and coparenting relationships play a pivotal role in promoting a stable home environment for foster children (Buehler et al. 2006; Cooley and Petren 2020). For example, foster caregivers who exhibit strong couple and coparenting relationships might be better equipped to collaborate as a team; this teamwork promotes a greater sense of mutual trust that can help establish a stable and well‐organized home environment built around normalcy and routine (Cooley and Petren 2020). When foster caregiver mothers and fathers feel supported by their coparent in their role as a foster caregiver, they may feel an increased capacity to manage the challenges that come along with fostering, although these associations have yet to be examined in the literature. In a study examining the associations between foster caregiver parenting stress and retention, Mallette et al. (under review) found that couple relationship quality served as a mediator where couples who experienced higher levels of stress were more likely to report lower levels of couple relationship quality and thus lower levels of retention. Further, when foster caregivers parent well together, the children in their care may reap the benefits of the high‐quality relationship, leading to more positive child outcomes (Linares et al. 2010), which may then be linked to higher satisfaction in caregivers (Cooley et al. 2015). In turn, higher caregiver satisfaction is associated with higher foster caregiver retention (Cooley et al. 2015). Addressing the nuance of these factors could play an important role in increasing foster caregiver retention, which may reduce systemic costs and improve overall outcomes for foster children and foster caregivers. Thus, we aim to identify the associations between couple relationship skills, overall relationship quality, and perceptions of coparenting support to determine how these factors may influence foster caregivers' intent to continue fostering.

1.3. Present Study

The associations between interparental relationship quality and foster caregiver retention may be examined within the lens of the sound relationship house theory (Gottman and Silver 2015). This theory posits that couples can create shared meaning if they first have the foundation of healthy relationship skills including intimate knowledge, sharing fondness and admiration, turning toward each other instead of away, having a positive perspective of their partner, and managing conflict in a healthy way. These skills, along with trust and commitment, allow couples to create shared meaning and make their “life dreams come true” (Gottman and Silver 2015). However, creating shared meaning, such as caring for a child in foster care, without the foundation of couple relationship skills and a positive perception of their partner, would be more difficult. Therefore, it could be that foster caregivers in a couple relationship may struggle to continue a meaningful but challenging commitment, such as providing foster care, if the foundation of their relationship is not strong.

Guided by the sound relationship house theory, the current study has three aims. First, we explore the latent profiles of married, non‐relative foster caregiver couples' interparental relationship quality to determine if there are clear groups of couples based on both partners' perceptions of their interparental relationship quality. Next, because of the limited research examining the interparental relationship quality of foster caregivers, we assess whether the subgroups of couples' perceptions of interparental relationship quality possibly covary with various foster caregiver and couple characteristics. Previous literature suggests that interparental relationship quality is correlated with a number of children (Kowal et al. 2021), and that foster caregiver retention is associated with foster caregiver age, length of time fostering, and employment status (Ahn et al. 2017). Thus, potential covariates examined in the current study include length of marriage, number of children cared for in the past 12 months, number of children currently being cared for, length of time fostering, and foster mothers' employment status. Third, we aim to determine if membership in a certain profile of couple‐level interparental relationship quality is associated with foster mothers' and fathers' intent to continue fostering in the next 12 months (i.e., retention). Based on existing literature and sound relationship house theory, we hypothesize that couples where one or both partners perceive lower couple and coparenting relationship quality will also report lower levels of intent to continue fostering.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

The current study is a secondary data analysis of baseline data from a larger, federally funded project that studied the experiences of parents connected to the child‐welfare system who were enrolled in a couple relationship education (CRE) program implemented in a 12‐county region of northeast Georgia (Futris and Adler‐Baeder 2014). Data are derived from a subset of active, approved foster caregivers who were in a committed couple relationship (married or unmarried) and voluntarily registered for one of four CRE weekend trainings (8 contact hours) that occurred between 2015 and 2019. Participants were recruited through advertisements with child welfare agencies in the area, foster caregiver agencies, listservs, and word of mouth. Trained facilitators utilized the evidence‐based curriculum ELEVATE: Taking your relationship to the next level (Futris and Adler‐Baeder 2014) to provide strategies to mitigate stress and strengthen couples' relationships and coparenting skills. The research study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Georgia (STUDY00003068), and informed consent was received from every participant prior to completing study surveys.

All enrolled participants were invited to complete an online survey up to 4 weeks prior to the program. Each respondent received a $50 incentive. Of the 528 individuals (n = 264 couples) who enrolled in the weekend training, 500 (95%) completed the baseline survey, resulting in data from one or both partners for 257 couples. The current study used distinctive dyadic data to better understand foster caregivers' coparenting relationship and examine gender differences in baseline interparental relationship quality and intended retention. As such, couples with data from only one partner (n = 14) as well as same‐sex couples (n = 8) were excluded from analyses. Further, because foster caregivers' intent to continue foster care was only asked during the last year of the project (2019), the final analytic sample was further reduced to 79 different‐sex foster caregiving couples. Comparisons between the retained sample and the dropped sample suggest that in couples who were in the final analytic sample, men were significantly older (F = 5.991, p = 0.015), men were significantly more likely to identify as Hispanic (F = 18.421, p < 0.001), and women were more likely to not currently be employed (χ 2 = 9.07, p = 0.28).

2.2. Sample

All 79 couples were married, and on average, they were married for 16.66 years (SD = 11.43 years; range: 1.83–52 years). They had an average of 3.42 children living in their homes more than half of the time (SD = 1.89; range: 1–8) which included children in foster care and their own biological or adopted children in some cases. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 80 years old and, on average, were in their early 40s (Men: M = 45.77; SD = 11.80; Women: M = 44.08; SD = 10.44). The majority of participants identified as White (69.2% of men, 73.4% of women) and non‐Hispanic (92.4% of men and 96.2% of women). Most participants had completed an associate's degree or higher (54.5% of men and 59.6% of women). Men primarily worked full‐time (86.1%), and a large portion of women were unemployed (36.7%). Couples reported an average annual income of at least $40,000 (92%; 54.7% > $75,000). Complete demographics for the analytic sample can be found in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Sample demographics and comparisons.

Men (n = 79) Women (n = 79)
M/n SD/% M/n SD/%
Age 45.77 11.80 44.08 10.44
Ethnicity
Hispanic 6 7.60% 3 3.80%
Non‐Hispanic 73 92.40% 76 96.20%
Race
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Asian 1 1.30% 1 1.30%
Black or African American 16 20.50% 18 22.80%
Pacific Islander 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
White 54 69.20% 58 73.40%
Other 3 3.80% 1 1.30%
Multiracial 4 5.10% 1 1.30%
Education
No diploma/degree 3 3.80% 0 0.00%
High school diploma/GED 14 17.7% 10 12.70%
Some college 12 15.20% 15 19.00%
Vocational/technical certification 7 8.90% 7 8.90%
Associate degree 12 15.20% 10 12.70%
Bachelor's degree 15 19.00% 16 20.30%
Advanced degree 16 20.30% 21 26.60%
Employment
Not employed 7 8.90% 29 36.70%
Full time 68 86.10% 26 32.90%
Part time/temporary/seasonal/h vary 4 5.00% 24 30.40%
Annual household income
$7000–$13,999 1 1.30%
$14,000–$24,999 1 1.30%
$25,000–$39,999 4 5.10%
$40,000–$74,999 31 39.70%
$75,000–$99,999 15 19.20%
$100,000+ 26 33.30%
Open in a new tab

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Couple Relationship Skills

Couple relationship skills were measured utilizing the 32‐item Couple Relationship Skills Inventory (CRSI; Adler‐Baeder et al. 2022). The CRSI consists of seven subscales developed from prior relationship maintenance and interpersonal competence scales that capture the relationship skills learned in the ELEVATE curriculum. The Self Care subscale (8‐items) assesses how well an individual in a relationship can manage their own mental and physical well‐being (e.g., “I manage the stress in my life”). The Choose subscale (4‐items) subscale assesses an individual's commitment to their relationship and making their relationship work (e.g., “I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we may encounter”). The Know subscale (4 items) assesses the amount of information that an individual knows about their partner on an intimate level (e.g., “I know my partner's current major worries”). The Care subscale (4 items) assesses the frequency at which individuals invest time and energy toward creating a positive atmosphere in their romantic relationship (e.g., “do something nice for your partner”). The Share subscale (3 items) assesses the frequency at which an individual shares an intentional connection with their partner (e.g., “talk with each other about our day”). The Manage subscale (5 items) assesses the individuals' skills in managing conflict that may arise (e.g., “when things ‘get heated’ I suggest we take a break to calm down”). The Connect subscale (4 items) assesses how connected an individual feels that they and their partner are to people who can offer them support (e.g., “We know people who care about us and our relationship”). Response options ranged from 1 to 7, where 1 = very strongly disagree and 7 = very strongly agree for Self‐Care, Choose, Know, Manage, and Connect, and 1 = never and 7 = more often than once a day for Share and Care. A mean score was calculated for all subscales combined where higher scores indicate more positive couple relationship skills (a = 0.95, men; 0.95, women).

2.3.2. Couple Relationship Quality

Couple relationship quality was measured utilizing the Quality Marriage Index (Norton 1983). Participants reported their level of agreement (1 = very strongly disagree; 7 = very strongly agree) on three items related to their relationship positivity and happiness (e.g., “my relationship makes me happy”). A mean score was computed such that higher scores reflect higher couple relationship quality (a = 0.94, men; 0.94, women).

2.3.3. Coparenting Support

Perceptions of coparenting support was measured utilizing a 12‐item scale created for this study that was adapted from the Casey Foster Applicant Inventory Co‐Parenting Scale (CFAI‐CP; Cherry and Orme 2011) and the Coparenting Questionnaire (Margolin et al. 2001). Participants rated their level of agreement (1 = very strongly disagree; 7 = very strongly agree) with statements pertaining to individual's belief that their partner adequately supports them in their coparenting relationship (e.g., “my partner has similar beliefs about how to parent children”). A mean score was computed such that higher scores reflected higher levels of a supportive coparenting relationship (a = 0.89, men; 0.91, women).

2.3.4. Intent to Continue Fostering

A single item was used to measure participants' intent to continue fostering. Participants rated how strongly they agreed (1 = very strongly disagree; 7 = very strongly agree) to the following statement: “Being a foster parent is something I want to continue doing for at least the next 12 months.”

2.3.5. Covariate Variables

Demographic data on the couple was collected during the registration and enrollment process. Covariates included in the current study were related to the couple's relationship (i.e., length of marriage in years, foster mother's employment status) and their fostering experiences (i.e., number of children cared for in the past 12 months, number of children currently being cared for, and length of time fostering in months).

2.3.6. Analytic Plan

A three‐step latent profile analysis (LPA; Asparouhov and Muthén 2013) was conducted to examine whether different profiles of interparental relationship quality exist for foster caregiver couples. Once it was determined that different profiles existed, we then examined covariates and an outcome. We chose to employ a latent profile analysis because it allowed for a nuanced examination of the complexities of foster caregiver experiences and perceptions of their interparental relationship using a person‐centered approach. Further, using a latent profile analysis allowed us to determine sex differences within different‐sex dyads regarding interparental relationship quality and to determine how congruence and incongruence between partners' perceptions of interparental relationship quality are associated with their intent to continue fostering in the next 12 months. Due to the dyadic nature of the data, we ran bivariate correlations to examine the non‐independence of the sample (Kenny et al. 2020). After determining that the sample was non‐independent, we conducted the 3‐step latent profile analysis where data on both partners' perceptions of couple relationship skills, couple relationship quality, and coparenting support were included in the analysis to allow for the examination of different profiles at the couple level.

The three steps include (1) identifying profiles of foster caregiver interparental relationship quality, (2) examining potential covariates (i.e., foster caregiver characteristics including length of marriage, number of children cared for in the past 12 months, number of children currently being cared for, length of time fostering, and whether the mother was employed outside the home), and (3) examining between‐group differences in foster caregiver retention. As part of the first step, we identified the number of profiles from the three indicators of interparental relationship quality, taking into consideration statistical and theoretical factors (Nylund et al. 2007). As a second step, we used multinomial logistic regression to examine the associations between potential covariates (i.e., foster caregiver couple characteristics) and couple‐level interparental relationship quality using the most likely group as a reference to determine relative risk ratios. Third, we used the Wald test to examine equalities of means for foster caregiver retention by sex across the latent profiles (Asparouhov and Muthén 2013). We accounted for missing data using full information maximum likelihood (FIML; Enders and Bandalos 2001). This study was not preregistered. Data used in this study is not publicly available but are available upon request from the corresponding author.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive characteristics of each variable of interest are presented in Table 2. On average, men and women reported a relatively high level of couple relationship skills (M men = 5.53, M women = 5.45), couple relationship quality (M men = 6.03, M women = 5.71), perceived coparenting support (M men = 5.84, M women = 5.57), and intention to continue fostering (M men = 5.84, M women = 5.74). A paired sample t‐test revealed no significant differences between men and women on any of the variables of interest. Further, correlations between the three indicators of interparental relationship quality for men and women separately revealed significant correlations between all variables in the expected directions (Table 3).

TABLE 2.

Study variable descriptives.

Foster caregiver couple characteristics Range M (SD)
Length of marriage (months) 22–624 199.88 (137.11)
Number of children in past 12 months 2–15 3.83 (3.22)
Number of children currently 0–5 1.86 (1.25)
Length of time fostering (months) 1–288 41.96 (1.25)
Foster mother's employment status 0–1 0.63 (0.49)
Independent and dependent variables Range Male M (SD) Female M (SD) Paired sample t‐tests
Couple relationship skills 3.38–6.79 5.53 (0.72) 5.45 (0.74) 0.75
Couple relationship quality 3.33–7.00 6.03 (0.93) 5.71 (1.07) 1.73
Coparenting support 3.25–7.00 5.84 (0.81) 5.57 (0.95) 1.88
Fostering retention 1–7 5.84 (1.60) 5.74 (1.70) 0.12
Open in a new tab

Note: Foster Mother's Employment Status: 0 = Not employed for pay, 1 = Employed for pay.

TABLE 3.

Bivariate correlations between variables of interest for men and women separately.

1 2 3
1. CRS — 0.803** 0.686**
2. RQ 0.664** — 0.666**
3. Coparenting 0.389** 0.395** —
Open in a new tab

Note: Correlations above the diagonal are women's correlations and correlations below the diagonal are men's correlations.

Abbreviations: CRS, couple relationship skills; RQ, couple relationship quality.

**

p < 0.01.

3.2. Step 1: Patterns in Interparental Relationship Quality

As a first step in the latent profile analysis, we evaluated competing models using multiple model fit indices to identify patterns in interparental relationship quality for foster caregivers (see Table 4, Figure 1, and Table 5). Models with an entropy closer to 1.00 and lower AIC and BIC‐adjusted values were considered to be the best fit of the data. We also took into consideration the results from the Lo Mendell Rubin adjustment likelihood ratio test (LMR; Nylund et al. 2007). The 2‐ and 3‐profile models had lower AIC and adjusted‐BIC values, and the 2‐profile model had the highest entropy. However, the p‐value for the LMR test was not significant for the 2‐, 4‐, or 5‐profile models. Therefore, we selected the 3‐profile model as the best fit for the data. We termed the first profile as men moderate/women low relationship quality (n = 6; 7.7%), the second as moderate relationship quality (n = 38; 48.7%), and the third as high relationship quality (n = 34; 43.6%).

TABLE 4.

Model fit statistics for the latent profile solutions.

No. of profiles LMR p AIC BIC Adj.‐BIC Entropy BLRT BLRT p Smallest profile a (%)
2 59.29 0.38 391.35 415.97 356.95 0.96 −207.61 < 0.001 48.1%
3 52.77 0.02 951.86 1013.13 931.16 0.95 −477.18 < 0.001 7.9%
4 30.52 0.52 1004.65 1083.66 979.59 0.89 −485.08 < 0.001 8.6%
5 28.54 0.36 987.73 1083.51 957.36 0.89 −468.60 < 0.001 8.6%
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold indicates best‐fitting latent profile solution.

Abbreviations: Adj.‐BIC, Sample Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC, akaike information criterion; LMR, Lo–Mendell–Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test.

a

Percentage of foster caregivers in the smallest profile solution.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Three latent classes based on three measures of interparental relationship quality for couples.

TABLE 5.

Means for indicators of interparental relationship quality by profile.

Group 1 (M) Group 2 (M) Group 3 (M)
Men Women Men Women Men Women
CRS 5.06 3.91 5.33 5.13 5.81 6.08
RQ 5.25 3.79 5.54 5.15 6.61 6.71
Coparenting support 5.15 3.88 5.62 5.26 6.16 6.26
Open in a new tab

3.3. Step 2: Covariance of Couple and Fostering Characteristics

After determining that the 3‐profile model fit the data best, we examined which foster caregiver characteristics were associated with couple‐level patterns of interparental relationship quality using the moderate relationship quality group as the reference group. Table 6 outlines the results from the logistic regression analyses, sharing the relative risk ratios for group membership. Results showed that none of the characteristics statistically covaried with groupings of foster caregiver interparental relationship quality.

TABLE 6.

Between‐class comparisons on predictors (Multinomial Logistic Regression).

Couple characteristics Men Mod/women low relationship quality (OR) Moderate relationship quality (OR)
Est. (OR) 95% CI Est. (OR) 95% CI
Length of marriage 0.00 (0.00) 1.00; 1.01 −0.00 (0.00) 0.99; 1.00
Number of children in past 12 months −0.08 (0.18) 0.64; 1.32 0.08 (0.08) 0.92; 1.26
Number of children currently 0.40 (0.35) 0.75; 2.95 0.17 (0.20) 0.79; 1.76
Length of time fostering −0.01 (0.01) 0.97; 1.02 −0.01 (0.01) 0.98; 1.00
Foster mother's employment status −1.48 (0.94) 0.04; 1.72 −0.18 (0.52) 0.43; 3.33
Open in a new tab

Note: Comparisons are made for demographic covariates using the Moderate Relationship Quality profile group as a reference.

Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.

3.4. Step 3: Group Differences in Couple Relationship Quality and Parenting Stress

Last, we examined the associations between foster caregiver couples' interparental relationship quality and each partner's reports of their intent to continue fostering by exploring between‐profile differences in the mean scores of each outcome indicator. Mean scores and group comparison findings are summarized in Table 7. On average, foster mothers who were part of the men moderate/women low interparental relationship quality group were less likely to report that they intended to continue fostering in the next 12 months.

TABLE 7.

Outcome mean group differences for each relationship quality profile.

Men Mod/women low interparental relationship quality Moderate interparental relationship quality High interparental relationship quality
M SE M SE M SE
Intent to continue fostering
Men 4.21 1.13 5.66 0.29 6.24 0.21
Women 3.85 b , c 0.93 6.00 a 0.23 5.80 a 0.029
Open in a new tab

Note: Equalities of means for foster caregivers across the three latent profiles are presented. Statistically significant mean group differences based on the Wald test are shown in superscript at the p < 0.05 level.

a

Men mod/women low.

b

Moderate relationship quality.

c

High relationship quality.

4. Discussion

The present study builds upon existing literature on foster caregivers by considering how disparate patterns of men's and women's interparental relationship quality may uniquely influence their decisions about foster caregiving, offering a nuanced perspective through the lens of sound relationship house theory (Gottman and Silver 2015). Specifically, we explored patterns of interparental relationship quality among married, non‐relative foster caregiver couples to examine whether demographic (i.e., couples' length of marriage, foster mothers' employment status) and fostering (i.e., length of time fostering, number of children cared for in the past 12 months, number of children currently being cared for) characteristics covary with resultant interparental relationship quality profiles. We then explored the association between interparental relationship quality and the intent of both foster mothers and fathers to continue fostering in the next 12 months. Our findings illustrate the dynamics within foster caregiver couples and underscore the complexity of factors that impact foster caregivers' interparental relationship quality and their intentions to continue fostering.

Using a latent profile analysis, three distinct interparental relationship quality profiles emerged, which we categorized as (a) men moderate/women low relationship quality, (b) moderate relationship quality, and (c) high relationship quality. The three distinct identified profiles represent a range of interparental relationship dynamics. While most couples fell into the moderate and high‐quality profiles, a small proportion of couples in our sample reported notable differences in perceptions of their interparental relationship quality. Previous research indicates that foster caregiving can exacerbate existing strains within a relationship, particularly when caregiving responsibilities are perceived as unbalanced or when mothers perceive lacking support systems (Mallette et al. 2020). Thus, it is possible that mothers who reported lower interparental relationship quality than fathers may feel a lack or imbalance of perceived support in the caregiving role. Also, foster mothers who are responsible for more of the caregiving may feel increased parenting stress (Lohaus et al. 2017), which has been associated with decreased interparental relationship quality (Richardson and Futris 2019). Further research could elucidate relationship or parenting‐specific characteristics that could be contributing to lower interparental relationship quality for foster mothers than foster fathers.

Our findings suggested that interparental relationship quality profiles did not significantly differ across demographic and fostering characteristics. This seems to contrast with prior research which indicates that factors such as the number of children in the home, length of time fostering, and mother's employment status do influence the relationship among foster caregiver couples (e.g., Ahn et al. 2017; Mallette et al. 2020). It may be that we did not find any significant associations between covariates examined and interparental relationship quality because factors that have been found to be challenging for foster caregivers' well‐being are mainly related to external factors of fostering, such as working with caseworkers and social workers (Nesmith 2020), accessing resources and services, and a lack of training (Mallette and Elmore‐Li 2024). In fact, foster caregivers have reported that dealing with system‐related factors is the main source of stress in foster caregiving (Geiger et al. 2013; Leathers et al. 2019), so it is plausible that external factors are more influential for relationship satisfaction than the internal demographic and fostering characteristics in our study. Future research should examine the associations between external factors associated with foster caregiving and interparental relationship quality.

When examining how different groups of foster caregiver couples' interparental relationship quality was associated with intent to continue fostering, we found that only foster mothers who were categorized into the men moderate/women low relationship quality profile were significantly less likely to report wanting to continue fostering within the next 12 months than those in the other two profiles. This finding aligns with recent research demonstrating a positive link between couple relationship quality and foster parent retention (Mallette et al., under review). It is possible that foster mothers' perceived relational strain may spill over into other aspects of fostering related to retention, such as role commitment, external locus of control, and motivation to foster (Hanlon et al. 2021). This spillover may contribute to experiences of burnout, diminished commitment to their role, less control over their relationships, and feeling less family unity and harmony, any of which could contribute to a lack of willingness to continue fostering. However, these associations still need to be empirically examined.

In comparison, our findings demonstrated that foster parent couples in the moderate and high relationship quality profiles were equally likely to express willingness to continue fostering. According to the sound relationship house theory (Gottman and Silver 2015), couples need to feel like they can rely on each other and that they are a team in order to work together toward shared goals. Thus, couples with a foundation of healthy relationship skills may be better able to handle the demands of foster caregiving together and may share a commitment and motivation to continue their role. Conversely, foster mothers in the current sample who felt strain and contention in their relationship may have felt inconsistent or waning commitment.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

While the current study provides valuable insights into unique interparental relationship quality patterns among foster caregivers, there are limitations that warrant attention. The inclusion of reports from both foster mothers and fathers allowed for the examination of both partners' foster caregiver experiences and perceptions of their interparental relationship using a person‐centered approach. However, the small sample size in general, and particularly of the men moderate/women low group, limited our ability to fully understand the complexities of their experiences and likely reduced the statistical power needed to detect between‐profile differences, including covariates and retention outcomes. Future research with a larger, more diverse sample could provide more robust results and allow for examination of additional subgroups with more investigation into those with low reported relationship quality. It would be especially important to examine these associations in a sample of foster caregivers who had not self‐selected to participate in a couple relationship education program as those who chose to participate are likely to be more in tune with their couple relationship skills and quality, which may make it less likely that either partner is perceiving poor relationship functioning. Further, the cross‐sectional design of the study restricted the establishment of causation, underscoring the need for longitudinal research to explore how interparental relationship quality and foster retention evolve over time. However, despite the limitations, this study serves as an important first step to better understand how the interparental relationship quality of foster caregivers may be associated with intentions to continue fostering, which has important implications for foster caregiver support and screening efforts to enhance placement stability and child well‐being.

6. Implications and Conclusions

Although many foster caregivers remain in their roles for many years, the challenges inherent to foster caregiving often lead to foster caregivers expressing the desire to close their home to future placements (Leathers et al. 2019). Our results suggest that foster caregiver couples who have moderate to high levels of interparental relationship quality are more likely to report the intention to continue fostering, while foster mothers who report low relationship quality are the least likely to report wanting to continue. Future research would benefit from further examination of the discrepancy between partners to determine factors that may influence foster mothers' perceptions of low interparental relationship quality and examination of external support and fostering characteristics that may better explain factors that enhance or mitigate relationship strain for foster caregivers.

These findings also have implications for the child welfare system and those who provide assistance to and support for foster caregivers. First, the current study may have implications for the screening of foster caregivers who are in a couple relationship. Those who are struggling in their relationship before beginning fostering may be at higher risk for attrition and providing stable and high‐quality care for children placed in their home. Thus, child welfare agencies may choose to assess potential foster caregivers' interparental relationship quality to identify those who may need to be either screened out or who could benefit from additional training and support services (e.g., counseling, couple relationship education). Further, fostering a child is a large responsibility, and married foster couples have reported feeling unprepared for the strain placed on their couple relationship (Mallette et al. 2020). Targeted interventions such as relationship education can reinforce healthy relationship skills that could assist foster caregivers with managing the stressors of fostering (Richardson et al. 2023) and how to handle the division of labor, especially in situations with unequal distribution of parenting responsibilities (Mallette et al. 2020). Professionals who work with foster families, including therapists, family life educators, and social workers, can support foster caregiver couples by providing relationship education, counseling, and other workshops focused on enhancing communication quality, effectively managing conflict and stress, and providing emotional support. This integrated approach could strengthen interparental relationship quality and promote a familial environment that is conducive to continuing to foster. Further, while this study does not directly speak to the timing of couple relationship education for the most benefit to foster caregivers, providing couple relationship education early in the fostering process, potentially as part of the intake training for those in a couple relationship, may help strengthen the couple and coparenting relationship before their first placement. This may allow potential foster caregivers to identify issues in their relationship, gain the relationship skills to manage these issues, provide tools for future challenges that they may experience in their relationship, and teach them to manage stress, including the challenges of fostering. Importantly, participating in couple relationship education or other interventions that teach couples how to have a stronger, healthier relationship may be helpful to foster caregiver couples no matter where they are in their fostering journey. More empirical studies are needed to better understand the ideal timing for couple relationship interventions for foster caregivers to improve stability and retention.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: #90FM0081. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health.

Funding: Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: #90FM0081.

References

  1. Adler‐Baeder, F. , Futris T. G., McGill J., Richardson E. W., and Yildirim E. D.. 2022. “Validating the Couple Relationship Skills Inventory.” Family Relations 71: 279–306. 10.1111/fare.12590. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Administration for Children & Families . 2024. New Data Shows a Consistent Decrease of Children in Foster Care. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2024/new‐data‐shows‐consistent‐decrease‐children‐foster‐care.
  3. Ahn, H. , Greeno E. J., Bright C. L., Hartzel S., and Reiman S.. 2017. “A Survival Analysis of the Length of Foster Parenting Duration and Implications for Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents.” Children and Youth Services Review 79: 478–484. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asparouhov, T. , and Muthén B.. 2013. Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: 3‐Step Approaches Using Mplus, 1–24. Mplus Web Notes. https://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/AuxMixture_submitted_corrected_webnote.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boss, P. 1999. Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live With Unresolved Grief. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Buehler, C. , Cox M. E., and Cuddeback G.. 2003. “Foster Parent's Perceptions of Factors That Promote or Inhibit Effective Fostering.” Qualitative Social Work 2: 61–83. 10.1177/1473325003002001281. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buehler, C. , Rhodes K. W., Orme J. G., and Cuddeback G.. 2006. “The Potential for Successful Family Foster Care: Conceptualizing Competency Domains for Foster Parents.” Child Welfare 85, no. 3: 523–558. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45397898. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cherry, D. J. , and Orme J. G.. 2011. “Validation Study of a Co‐Parenting Scale for Foster Couples.” Journal of Public Child Welfare 5: 564–589. 10.1080/15548732.2011.617285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Child Welfare Information Gateway . 2018. Foster Care Statistics 2016. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, J. K. , Parra G., and Jiang Q.. 2019. “The Longitudinal and Bidirectional Relationships Between Cooperative Coparenting and Child Behavioral Problems in Low‐Income, Unmarried Families.” Journal of Family Psychology 33, no. 2: 203–214. 10.1037/fam0000498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cooley, M. E. , Farineau H. M., and 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. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooley, M. E. , Newquist J., Thompson H. M., and Colvin M. L.. 2019a. “A Systematic Review of Foster Parent Preservice Training.” Children and Youth Services Review 107: 104552. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104552. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooley, M. E. , and Petren R. E.. 2020. “A Qualitative Examination of Coparenting Among Foster Parent Dyads.” Children and Youth Services Review 110: 104776. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104776. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooley, M. E. , Thompson H. M., and Newell E.. 2019b. “Examining the Influence of Social Support on the Relationship Between Child Behavior Problems and Foster Parent Satisfaction and Challenges.” Child & Youth Care Forum 48, no. 3: 289–303. 10.1007/s10566-018-9478-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cummings, M. E. , and Davies P. T.. 2002. “Effects of Marital Conflict on Children: Recent Advances and Emerging Themes in Process‐Oriented Research.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43, no. 1: 31–63. 10.1111/1469-7610.00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, P. T. , and Cummings E. M.. 1994. “Marital Conflict and Child Adjustment: An Emotional Security Hypothesis.” Psychological Bulletin 116, no. 3: 387–411. 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. DeGarmo, J. n.d. The Foster Care Crisis: The Shortage of Foster Parents in America. American Society for the Positive Care of Children. https://americanspcc.org/the‐foster‐care‐crisis‐the‐shortage‐of‐foster‐parents‐in‐america/. [Google Scholar]
  18. Enders, C. K. , and Bandalos D. L.. 2001. “The Relative Performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models.” Structural Equation Modeling 8, no. 3: 430–457. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Farooqi, S. R. 2014. “The Construct of Relationship Quality.” Journal of Relationships Research 5: e2. 10.1017/jrr.2014.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Feinberg, M. E. , Kan M. L., and Hetherington E. M.. 2007. “The Longitudinal Influence of Coparenting Conflict on Parental Negativity and Adolescent Maladjustment.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69, no. 3: 687–702. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00400.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox, A. , and Berrick J. D.. 2007. “A Response to no One Ever Asked US: A Review of Children's Experiences in Out‐Of‐Home Care.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 24, no. 1: 23–51. 10.1007/s10560-006-0057-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Futris, T. G. , and Adler‐Baeder F.. 2014. ELEVATE: Taking Your Relationship to the Next Level. Published by the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Alabama A&M and Auburn Universities: Publication No. FCS‐2047) and the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension (Publication No. HDFS‐E‐161). http://www.nermen.org/ELEVATE.php.
  23. Geiger, J. M. , Hayes M. J., and Lietz C. A.. 2013. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? A Mixed Methods Study Examining the Factors Influencing Foster Parents' Decisions to Continue or Discontinue Providing Foster Care.” Children and Youth Services Review 35, no. 9: 1356–1365. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gibbs, D. , and Wildfire J.. 2007. “Length of Service for Foster Parents: Using Administrative Data to Understand Retention.” Children and Youth Services Review 29, no. 5: 588–599. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, J. S. , and Carlson M. J.. 2014. “Parents' Relationship Quality and Children's Behavior in Stable Married and Cohabiting Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76, no. 4: 762–777. 10.1111/jomf.12120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goleman, D. 2006. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. Arrow Books. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gottman, J. , and Silver N.. 2015. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Harmony. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hanlon, R. , Simon J., Day A., Vanderwill L., Kim J., and Dallimore E.. 2021. “Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Foster Parent Retention.” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 102, no. 3: 285–299. 10.1177/1044389420970034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hebert, C. , Kulkin H. S., and McLean M.. 2013. “Grief and Foster Parents: How Do Foster Parents Feel When a Foster Child Leaves Their Home?” Adoption and Fostering 37, no. 3: 253–267. 10.1177/0308575913501615. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jensen, T. 2021. “Theorizing Ambiguous Gain: Opportunities for Family Scholarship.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 13, no. 1: 100–109. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jiménez‐Picón, N. , Romero‐Martín M., Ramirez‐Baena L., Palomo‐Lara J. C., and Gómez‐Salgado J.. 2021. “Systematic Review of the Relationship Between Couple Dyadic Adjustment and Family Health.” Children 8, no. 6: 491. 10.3390/children8060491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson, M. D. , and Anderson J. R.. 2013. “The Longitudinal Association of Marital Confidence, Time Spent Together, and Marital Satisfaction.” Family Process 52, no. 2: 244–256. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01417.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kamp‐Dush, C. M. , and Amato P. R.. 2005. “Consequences of Relationship Status and Quality for Subjective Well‐Being.” Journal of Personal and Social Relationships 22, no. 5: 607–627. 10.1177/0265407505056438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kenny, D. A. , Kashy D. A., and Cook W. L.. 2020. Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  35. Konijn, C. , Admiraal S., Baart J., et al. 2019. “Foster Care Placement Stability: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Children and Youth Services Review 96: 483–499. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kowal, M. , Groyecka‐Bernard A., Kochan‐Wójcik M., and Sorokowski P.. 2021. “When and How Does the Number of Children Affect Marital Satisfaction? An International Survey.” PLoS One 16, no. 4: e0249516. 10.1371/journal.pone.0249516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Leathers, S. J. , Spielfogel J. E., Geiger J., Barnett J., and 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. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Linares, L. O. , Rhodes J., and Montalto D.. 2010. “Perceptions of Coparenting in Foster Care.” Family Process 49: 530–542. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01338.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lohaus, A. , Chodura S., Möller C., et al. 2017. “Children's Mental Health Problems and Their Relation to Parental Stress in Foster Mothers and Fathers.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 11: 43. 10.1186/s13034-017-0180-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mallette, J. K. , Almond L., and Leonard H.. 2020. “Fostering Healthy Families: An Exploration of the Informal and Formal Support Needs of Foster Caregivers.” Children and Youth Services Review 110: 104760. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104760. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mallette, J. K. , and Elmore‐Li C. R.. 2024. “Foster Caregiver Experiences: Implications for Retention and Satisfaction.” Journal of Family Issues 45, no. 8: 2077–2099. 10.1177/0192513x231194609. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Margolin, G. , Gordis E. B., and John R. S.. 2001. “Coparenting: A Link Between Marital Conflict and Parenting in Two‐Parent Families.” Journal of Family Psychology 15, no. 1: 3–21. 10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Meloy, M. E. , and Phillips D. A.. 2012. “Foster Children and Placement Stability: The Role of Childcare Assistance.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33, no. 5: 252–259. 10.1016/j.appdev.2012.06.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Morry, M. N. , Reich T., and Kito M.. 2010. “How Do I See You Relative to Myself? Relationship Quality as a Predictor of Self and Partner‐Enhancement Within Cross‐Sex Friendships, Dating Relationships, and Marriages.” Journal of Social Psychology 150, no. 4: 369–392. 10.1080/00224540903365471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Murray, L. , Tarren‐Sweeney M., and France K.. 2010. “Foster Carer Perceptions of Support and Training in the Context of High Burden of Care.” Child & Family Social Work 16, no. 2: 149–158. 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00722.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. National Foster Youth Institute . 2017. The Foster Care Crisis: The Shortage of Foster Parents. https://www.nfyi.org/the‐foster‐carecrisis‐the‐shortage‐of‐foster‐parents‐us‐59072dcfe4b05279d4edbdd9/.
  47. Nesmith, A. 2020. “False Allegations and Caseworker Conflict: Stressors Among Long‐Term Foster Parents.” Children and Youth Services Review 118: 105435. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105435. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Norton, R. 1983. “Measuring Marital Quality: A Critical Look at the Dependent Variable.” Journal of Marriage & The Family 45: 141–151. 10.2307/351302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Nylund, K. L. , Asparouhov T., and Muthén B. O.. 2007. “Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study.” Structural Equation Modeling 14, no. 4: 535–569. 10.1080/10705510701575396. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Orme, J. G. , and Combs‐Orme T.. 2014. “Foster Parenting Together: Foster Parent Couples.” Children and Youth Services Review 36: 124–132. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Parkes, A. , Green M., and Mitchell K.. 2019. “Coparenting and Parenting Pathways From the Couple Relationship to Children's Behavior Problems.” Journal of Family Psychology 33, no. 2: 215–225. 10.1037/fam0000492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Richardson, E. W. , and Futris T. G.. 2019. “Foster Caregivers’ Marital and Coparenting Relationship Experiences: A Dyadic Perspective.” Family Relations 68, no. 2: 185–196. [Google Scholar]
  53. Richardson, E. W. , Futris T. G., and Mallette J. K.. 2020. “Fostering Confidence: Foster Caregivers’ Relationship Efficacy and Associations with Marital and Co‐Parenting Relationship Quality.” Child & Family Social Work 25: 62–73. [Google Scholar]
  54. Richardson, E. W. , Mallette J. K., and Futris T. G.. 2022. “‘In My Heart Forever:’ Foster Caregivers’ Dedication, Grief, and Couple Relationship Quality.” Journal of Family Studies 28, no. 1: 133–149. [Google Scholar]
  55. Richardson, E. W. , Mallette J. K., Futris T. G., and Pettit M.. 2023. “Non‐Relative Foster Caregivers’ Changes in Mindfulness and Couple Relationship Skills Following Relationship Education.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 40, no. 5: 1332–1353. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rubin, D. M. , O'Reilly A. L. R., Luan X., and Localio R.. 2007. “The Impact of Placement Stability on Behavioral Well‐Being for Children in Foster Care.” Pediatrics 119, no. 2: 336–344. 10.1542/peds.2006-1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Stanley, S. M. , Markman H. J., and Whitton S. W.. 2002. “Communication, Conflict, and Commitment: Insights on the Foundations of Relationship Success From a National Survey.” Family Process 41, no. 4: 659–675. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Teubert, D. , and Pinquart M.. 2010. “The Association Between Coparenting and Child Adjustment: A Meta‐Analysis.” Parenting 10, no. 4: 286–307. 10.1080/15295192.2010.492040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Turney, K. , and Wildeman C.. 2016. “Mental and Physical Health of Children in Foster Care.” Pediatrics 138, no. 5: e20161118. 10.1542/peds.2016-1118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Family Process are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES