When most women are expecting their fourth child, they don’t decide to start taking in foster children.
But that’s what Michele Bachmann did. For six years, from 1992 to 1998, she opened her home to a total of 23 teenage girls who needed a family. She juggled raising up to nine kids at a time, homeschooling her grade-school-age and younger biological children during the day and bonding with her high-school-age foster children at night. It was a demanding life — to get a taste of the workload, consider that Bachmann was often doing four loads of laundry daily – but one that she loved.
Advertisement
“It was wonderful, probably the most intellectually rewarding time of my life,” says the Minnesota GOP congresswoman.
It was during her pregnancy with her fourth child that Bachmann decided to become a stay-at-home mom. That decision paved the way for her and her husband, Marcus, a clinical therapist, to also consider taking in foster children. Inspired by the example of church friends who were foster parents, the Bachmanns decided to get licensed and give it a try. “We both had broken hearts for at-risk children,” Bachmann recalls.
They never intended to take in 23 of them, but the requests to find room for just one more child kept coming. “We just continued to say yes,” says Bachmann.
It made for an unusual household: Bachmann talks about managing three children five years old and younger, one still a nursing baby, while also doling out care and attention to as many as four teenagers at a time. She admits sometimes struggling to find the energy to keep up.
“It was a challenge to not just let go,” she says. “We had to continually keep the ball rolling between meals and laundry and cleaning and shopping and doctors’ appointments. It was just a very, very busy time.”
The children were expected to help out. Chores were divided up and assigned, plans and schedules formed. “It taught me very good organizational skills,” Bachmann muses. “It taught us how to work together as a family.”
Bachmann refuses to pick a few favorite memories out of those years. It is the “daily-ness,” the ins and outs involved in raising toddlers and teens, that she remembers fondly.
To cope with the hustle and bustle, the Bachmanns emphasized a lighthearted approach to life. “My husband and I are big believers in having a good sense of humor,” Bachmann says. “We’re a family that really loves humor.” That also helped them forge relationships, with shared laughter breaking “a lot of the barriers down” between the new foster children and the Bachmanns.
But they did not downplay the challenges their foster children faced without their biological parents. “There was always a challenge,” she says. “There could be tensions in a family, particularly during the teenage years, so our goal was just to get a family through a rough patch and hopefully reunite the child with one or both parents.”
While it has been over a decade since Bachmann has taken in a foster child, helping those children remains an important issue for her. But now, from her congressional perch, she’s focused on legislative action. She has twice introduced legislation that would give foster children under 16 (older children are already covered) education vouchers, which would allow them to remain in the same school when they switched homes or neighborhoods.
“They can be moved from home to home to home, and when that happens, generally speaking, they have to go to [the local] school,” Bachmann explains. “They don’t have a sense of permanency. They don’t have the same people in their lives.”
My respect for Congresswoman Bachmann just leaped a quantum state. She didn't protest, didn't complain, but rolled up her sleeves and became the solution for these young people.
That is true public service.
It is about time we as a society demand for public office people of character, people committed to helping their communities and neighbors through their own blood, sweat, and tears. Michelle Bachmann certainly deserves a high place on that list.
"Ladies who lunch" reminds me of the scene in Blindside when she tells her lunch friends she's taken in Oher. It's fine to give money, but giving your time like this is so much more.
23 is an extremely high number of children to foster in just 6 years. Michele Bachmann was a skilled tax attorney for the IRS before she took in the foster girls. Keep in mind that each child represents a childcare credit of 1K( reduction of fed tax bill dollar per dollar ), as well as non-taxable per diem income of at least $20 per day per child ( for example 9 girls at a time would be at least 5k per mo), additional healthcare and clothing allowances of several hundred dollars per child, the sum total of which represents significant income and tax deductions and credits over 6 years.
If you think that the deductions and credits make foster children a profitable use of M-B's time then you might want to spend more time studying the economics of raising a family.
If M-B just wanted to make money I assure you that there is an almost limitless number of other, far less painful and far more lucrative ways that someone with M-B's earning power can employ to make a buck.
@eristic: no, deductions and credits alone would not be enough but over $20 per day per child X 23 = $460 per day state compensation, minimum not including additional benefits is significant payment. I applaud Congresswoman Bachmann's wise family choices. And I was merely responding to the previous commenter, who said its fine to give money but time is more valuable. Foster care is not technically charitable. Under tax law, as in fact it is a licensed professional service.
SamS, your ignorance was silly the first time, but willful now and far less forgivable. When you've taken one of these injured or broken children into your home and heart and helped them become a functioning member of society come back on here and tell me how profitable the experience was to you. At that point, if you can still obsess about money, you're more dedicated to your corruption than is healthy. If you aren't arrested for false accusations, if your walls aren't damaged, if your heart isn't broken, if you don't come away with a perspective that the biggest of your concerns in life pales in comparison to a desire to make just one thing better for someone who has been victimized by their own family as well as the county or state bureaucracy that "saved" them, I'll be amazed. Your love of money is ugly and disgusting as it is sinfulness embodied, and I agree that your comments say volumes about you and only serve to raise Mrs. Bachmann by comparison. There are special blessings in store for each of us, and I'll wager the Bachmanns have a whole lot more to look forward to in the pleasantness of theirs than you'll find in the blessing of revelation you, looking through the lenses your petty envious greenback goggles, have in store.
@ the last poster, I am a staunch advocate of fostering children, and simply pointing out the benefits. As a practical businesswoman, politician, and a mom, I am sure Congresswoman Bachmann would agree that more people need to be aware of the financial support available to them, in hopes that more people will step up and open their homes and their hearts. In fact I would bet as an advocate and spokesperson she will continue to work to make as many financial benefits available as possible to better enable more foster parents to to be able to help more needy kids.
To SamS:
I can't believe that after reading about Congresswoman Bachmann's caring for foster kids that you would equate that experience to making money off of it. But that is how the left reacts, through libeling and attacking the decency of a conservative's actions.
"... but over $20 per day per child X 23 = $460 per day state compensation, minimum not including additional benefits is significant payment."
You seem to be forgetting all the expenses of those 23 children. It is ackowledged that M-B did a good job caring for those girls so it is unlikely that she netted much, if anything, on this 'significant payment.'
You can measure M-B's actions on a monetary basis if wish. For some, lucre is the measure of things.
For myself, I see no need to comment on whether she made any money. Even if it is possible for her to have profited slightly by her actions they are, nevertheless, laudable and not worthy of such petty and largely, if not completely, irrelevent observations.