Shaping Religious Practices, Care, and the Upbringing of Children with Autism: Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Fathers in Israel

Abstract

This qualitative study examines how Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish fathers in Israel describe raising a child with autism within the everyday life of a religious family. Although research on autism and family life has expanded, fathers’ voices remain underrepresented, especially in religious families in which family routines, the Sabbat and holidays, and everyday religious practices shape parenting and participation at home. Data were collected from 127 fathers of children aged 3 to 18 through an online Hebrew questionnaire that included open-ended questions and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings suggest that religiosity shaped fathers’ caregiving not only as a source of meaning, hope, and emotional strength but also as a practical framework for everyday accommodation and belonging. Four themes emerged: (1) religiosity as an anchor for resilience; (2) paternal love as a religious practice of accommodation; (3) paternal adaptation during the Sabbat and holidays; and (4) religious authority as a basis for legitimizing care practices and preserving the child’s place within family and religious life. Together, these findings underscore the importance of culturally responsive support that acknowledges how religious meaning systems shape paternal care, family participation, and children’s inclusion, while also suggesting that fatherhood may function as an ongoing mediating process within religious family life.

1. Introduction

Raising a child with autism can be demanding in ways that touch nearly every aspect of family life (Lobato-Ruiz et al. 2025; Pardo-Salamanca et al. 2024). Parents may find themselves planning constantly, preventing escalation, and making small adjustments that are essential for maintaining household stability, especially in recurring moments that structure family living, such as mealtimes, transitions between activities, bedtime, and family gatherings (Bagatell et al. 2014; Daly et al. 2022; Shiloh et al. 2023). For example, at mealtimes, parents may need to anticipate sensory sensitivities, prepare preferred foods separately, adjust seating arrangements, and monitor the child’s distress closely to prevent escalation and enable the family to complete a routine meal together. In religiously observant households, religion is lived through the organization of time, recurring rituals, and concrete rules about conduct, food, and family routines (Alghafli et al. 2019; Dahary Ben Namer and Zion Waldoks 2025). When a child has autism, these same moments can become points of strain. Participation may require careful planning, repeated adjustments, and complex decisions about boundaries, expectations, and what “counts” as being present (Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026; Zakirova-Engstrand and Wilder 2025).

Scholarship on parenting and autism has developed a rich body of knowledge, yet much of it centers on mothers’ perspectives, leaving only a partial picture of fathers’ experiences (André et al. 2025; Manor-Binyamini 2019). These experiences are particularly missing in religious families, where fathers often lead or represent key aspects of religious life at home (Marks et al. 2018; Smith 2021). In Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish families, fathers may occupy a culturally and religiously consequential position within the family structure. Their role often includes religious education, ritual leadership, the organization of Sabbat and holiday practices, modeling prayer and religious conduct, and transmitting religious norms to children (Marks et al. 2018; Libowitz 2023). These responsibilities become especially relevant when a child with autism experiences difficulty with the sensory, temporal, social, or behavioral demands embedded in religious family life. In such situations, fathers may be required to mediate between religious expectations, the child’s needs, and the family’s commitment to maintaining the child’s belonging within the religious home. Examining fathers’ accounts is therefore crucial for understanding how religious family routines are sustained, adapted, or reworked when children’s needs call for flexibility and ongoing accommodation (Shiloh et al. 2023; Zakirova-Engstrand and Wilder 2025). As such, this study focuses on Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish fathers in Israel, a setting where religious obligations, sacred time, and family life are deeply interwoven (Dahary Ben Namer and Zion Waldoks 2025; Libowitz 2023). Rather than treating religion as a background variable, the study approaches fathers’ religiosity as part of the practical context shaping everyday decisions: how routines are structured, expectations explained, family rituals handled, and guidance sought when standard assumptions about participation no longer apply (Alghafli et al. 2019; Findling et al. 2023). It explores how fathers describe their religious roles and daily caregiving when raising a child with autism.

1.1. Autism and Everyday Family Life in Religious Households

Raising children and adolescents with autism requires ongoing efforts to create stability within environments often experienced as unpredictable and overwhelming (Daly et al. 2022). Families frequently implement extensive accommodations to enable participation in daily life, including adjusting routines, schedules, and the home environment, including routines such as mealtimes, mornings, and bedtime routines that can be sources of stress (Alharbi 2024; Bagatell et al. 2014; Daly et al. 2022; Shiloh et al. 2023; Zakirova-Engstrand and Wilder 2025). In religiously observant households, daily accommodations are further shaped by sacred time and home-based religious practices that structure family life and meaning. For instance, one study found that Christian parents had to make accommodations to religious activities such as attending prayer services because of their children’s disruptive behaviors (Dai and Carter 2023).

Religion functions as an organizer of time in the home. For example, through structured times of fasting and meals during Ramadan (Alghafli et al. 2019) or the separation of weekday time from the sacred time of the Sabbat in Judaism (Marks et al. 2018). Further, religion is expressed through household habits involving food, rules, and rituals, understood as a system of embodied and spatial routines that shape domestic order. Practices such as preparing challah, Sabbat meals, or breaking the fast together are not only nutritional activities but rituals that generate closeness and intimacy (Alghafli et al. 2019; Marks et al. 2018). Religiosity is also enacted through clear rules and boundaries, such as turning off electronic devices on the Sabbat to cultivate calm and sanctity (Marks et al. 2018) or explicitly refraining from arguments during Ramadan as part of spiritual discipline (Alghafli et al. 2019).

Religious parenting, involving education and modeling, is perceived as a mission and a spiritual responsibility to transmit tradition to the next generation (Chia 2025). Parents are portrayed as stewards of their children’s souls, responsible for instilling religious values (Chia 2025), and the notion of repetition and teaching emphasizes the obligation to actively educate children within the home (Marks et al. 2018). A review of studies found that parents feel that it is important that their beliefs are instilled in their children with autism, and that children should be included in religious services and observances, accommodating where relevant (Hayat et al. 2024). Research further emphasizes that children learn religiosity by observing their parents, as parents’ prayer, their relationship to sacred texts, and their consistency in religious conduct constitute the central model for imitation (Chia 2025; Smith 2021). Religious parenting also includes clear expectations and boundaries for children, such as participation in prayer or receiving the parental blessing on the Sabbat evening, a ritual that combines the transmission of heritage with personal appreciation for each child (Marks et al. 2018). Accordingly, religiosity can shape parenting not only through belief but through the everyday structuring of life in the home. Strict adherence to religious codes, such as in Orthodox Judaism, may pose challenges for children who struggle to understand abstract social norms, requiring communities to adapt rituals to the sensory and regulatory needs of these children (Kéri 2023; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026).

1.2. Religious Meaning-Making and Coping

Beyond functioning as an organizing structure, religion also functions as a central emotional and cognitive resource that shapes the lived experience of parenting (Sabik et al. 2024; Çaksen 2025). A systematic literature review of 45 studies including cultural and religious groups such as Black, Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, and Latina families revealed that across these diverse groups, religiosity served as a coping mechanism, often by providing meaning and comfort (Utami et al. 2025). However, quantitative findings are not uniform: Davis and Kiang (2020) found that among mothers of children with autism, parental stress significantly predicted well-being, whereas positive religious coping, spirituality, and social support did not show significant main or moderating effects. Faith and religious language can provide parents of children with disabilities with a deep interpretive framework that enables them to find meaning in hardship and to cope with parental burnout (Findling et al. 2023; Vithana and Asurakkody 2025). In processes of meaning making, religious parents draw on faith-based narratives to interpret their child’s disability, which can support a shift from understanding the situation as a crisis to understanding it as a calling and a mission. For instance, in Druze and Haredi Jewish communities, parents often describe the child as a gift, a light, or a blessing from God rather than as a burden (Findling et al. 2023; Sabik et al. 2024). In a study that included primarily Christian participants, a majority of participants noted that religion provided meaning to the challenges of raising a child with autism, such as believing that God only gives parents what they can handle or that this is God’s challenge for them (Tarakeshwar and Pargament 2001). Similarly, narratives such as “a special child for a special parent” can foster self-worth and a sense of purpose, while beliefs in divine providence may support acceptance. Prayer and religious practice often serve as emotional anchors that promote calm, hope, and a sense of guidance (Sabik et al. 2024; Vithana and Asurakkody 2025). For example, Muslim mothers found that reading the Quran provided solace from the stress of parenting children with autism (Daulay et al. 2025). At the same time, religious interpretations may intensify distress when disability is understood as punishment or immanent justice, or when parents experience anger toward God (Çaksen 2025; Semerci et al. 2024). These meaning processes are expressed not only in beliefs but also in everyday parental roles, including fatherhood.

1.3. Fatherhood in Autism Research

The definition of fatherhood has shifted from centering on breadwinning to a role characterized by active involvement in caregiving and child rearing (Finzi-Dottan and Gilerenter 2018; Zheng et al. 2026). Such active participation is associated with the promotion of communication skills, reductions in behavioral difficulties, and stronger social interaction (André et al. 2025; Zheng et al. 2026). However, fathers of children with autism also face substantial pressures, including financial strain, elevated stress, exhaustion, and loneliness (Camilleri 2022; George-Levi et al. 2024). Fatherhood, particularly fathering a child with disabilities, is shaped by cultural and religious expectations. For example, in Bedouin communities, the father is positioned as the exclusive decision maker and as the key link between the family and support services and the broader community, and fathers may face intense social stigma that can contribute to concealing a child with disabilities (Manor-Binyamini 2019). In contexts such as the United Arab Emirates, fathers have been found to hold positive attitudes, yet mothers report ambivalence regarding the extent of fathers’ participation in professional training related to caring for the child (Opoku et al. 2024). In the Haredi Lithuanian community, the central male ideal is Torah study, and the father is viewed as primarily responsible for a son’s progress in religious learning, while learning difficulties such as reading challenges may be constructed as a deviation from the expected norm that threatens the child’s future (Libowitz 2023).

Despite the significance of fathers’ roles, fathers’ voices remain underrepresented in the existing literature, which has largely focused on mothers and has often been grounded in Western perspectives (André et al. 2025; Manor-Binyamini 2019). In particular, there is limited knowledge about fathers in communities where role expectations are shaped by religion and tradition (Manor-Binyamini 2019; Opoku et al. 2024). In religiously observant Jewish families, the father’s role generally includes responsibility for guiding religious practice, maintaining ritual continuity, and negotiating questions of religious law and family participation (Marks et al. 2018; Libowitz 2023). When raising a child with autism, these paternal responsibilities may require fathers to reinterpret what religious education, participation, and obedience mean in light of the child’s sensory, communicative, and regulatory needs. As such, fatherhood is not a static background variable but an active practice that directly shapes family organization and the child’s daily life (André et al. 2025). Fathers also report distinctive support needs, such as a preference for practical and targeted information, and understanding fathers’ experiences is therefore essential for developing culturally sensitive interventions (Camilleri 2022; Manor-Binyamini 2019).

1.4. Current Study

Research on autism and family life has expanded considerably, yet fathers’ voices remain underrepresented, particularly in religious settings where caregiving roles, family routines, and expectations are shaped by tradition and home-based religious practice (e.g., Rudelli et al. 2021; Koltai et al. 2024). The present study focuses on Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish fathers in Israel, examining how they describe everyday parenting and family adaptations while raising a child with autism at home, with particular attention to how paternal religiosity informs childrearing. Both Orthodox and Haredi Jewish families in Israel organize daily life around observance of halakha, sacred time, and strong family and community commitments (Alon et al. 2025). At the same time, Orthodox families are generally more integrated into Israeli public life, modern education, and professional life, whereas Haredi families tend to be more segregated from broader society and more strongly shaped by rabbinical authority and traditional gender norms. These differences may shape the resources and pressures fathers encounter when raising a child with autism. Understanding the religious dimension of fathers’ coping and parenting may help professionals who support children with autism and their families develop culturally responsive tools and interventions that fit the circumstances of religious households. It also opens pathways for further research on family accommodation among families adhering to religious practices.

A qualitative approach enables an in-depth examination of fathers’ meaning making and everyday decision making in their own words, capturing how religious commitments are negotiated in daily family life. The overarching research question for the current study was thus: How do religious and ultra-Orthodox fathers of children with autism describe their parenting experience within the framework of religious family life?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were fathers of children diagnosed with autism, who completed a qualitative questionnaire written in Hebrew that included open-ended questions. Of these fathers, 59 identified as Orthodox (46.5%) and 68 identified as ultra-Orthodox (53.5%). The fathers’ level of religiosity was assessed using self-report items on a scale of 1–5. Overall, participants reported high levels of religiosity, including a high level of religious observance (M = 4.26, SD = 0.82), strong religious belief (M = 4.58, SD = 0.72), and a high level of expectation of religious observance in the household (M = 4.11, SD = 0.93).

The children with autism ranged in age from 3 to 18 years (M = 11.11, SD = 4.60). Most were male (82.9%), and the rest female (17.1%). Most children lived at home with their families (88.6%), while a smaller proportion lived in out-of-home setting (11.4%). Families were relatively large, with an average of 5.11 children per family (SD = 2.22). The age of diagnosis ranged from infancy to adolescence (1–16 years), with the average age of 4.84 (SD = 2.74). The child’s autism diagnosis was based on fathers’ self-report. Fathers stated that their child had received an official autism diagnosis and was eligible for state funded special education services (which typically requires formal diagnostic evaluation). No clinical documentation was requested or independently verified. According to fathers’ reports based on the clinical diagnosis, most children were described as having high-functioning autism (60.2%), followed by moderate-functioning autism (29.3%) and low-functioning autism (8.1%). In addition, 26.8% of children were reported to have comorbid diagnoses (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, developmental or language delays, epilepsy), and 15.4% of fathers indicated that another child in the family was diagnosed with special needs and eligible for special education services.

2.2. Measures

This study employed a qualitative design using written responses to open-ended questions. A qualitative approach was chosen to capture rich first-person descriptions of religious and ultra-Orthodox fathers’ experiences, perceptions, and expected roles in raising children with autism. The use of an open-ended online questionnaire allowed for the inclusion of a relatively large sample of fathers, while allowing for narrative and reflective responses in the participants’ own words.

Data were collected using an online questionnaire in Hebrew consisting of two main parts. The first part included demographic items related to the father (e.g., age, religious affiliation, marital status, occupation, etc.) and the child with autism (e.g., age, gender, level of daily functioning, and severity of autism). In addition, three questions were asked regarding the father’s religious level, with fathers being asked to rate their level on a continuum of 1 to 5. The questions were as follows: (a) Rate your level of adherence to the mitzvot (Jewish commandements). (b) How would you rate your level of faith? (c) To what extent is there a requirement in your home to strictly observe the commandments? The second part of the questionnaire included six open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed descriptions of the fathers’ experiences, perceptions, and challenges regarding raising their child with autism. The questions were as follows: (1) Describe positive characteristics of your child with autism. (2) Describe challenging characteristics of your child with autism. (3) Do you make adjustments for your child/your family with autism? If so, what adjustments? Could you please elaborate and give us examples of different contexts (e.g., family, social, religious)? Please elaborate on three different examples/situation. (4) Can you share your feelings about making these adjustments? (5) Describe a specific situation/event in a family context in which you were required to make adjustments for your child and were able to make these adjustments. (6) Describe a specific situation/event in a family context in which you were required to make adjustments for your child and were unable to make these adjustments.

The use of an open-ended online questionnaire allows for the collection of rich and multidimensional data from a relatively large number of participants, as responses can be completed independently, at a time and place convenient to the respondent. However, the lack of real-time interaction with the researcher limits opportunities for probing, clarifying, or follow-up questions, and the depth and nuance of the data depend on the participants’ writing abilities and willingness to elaborate in their responses (Brown-Saracino 2021).

2.3. Ethics and Procedure

The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (blind review; approval number 036). All procedures met ethical standards established for research involving human participants. Research assistants reached out to Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox families who had a child with autism. Participants were eligible if they (a) identified themselves as Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, (b) were the father of a child with an official diagnosis of autism, and (c) had a child aged 3–18 years at the time of participation. Individuals who met the criteria received the questionnaire via an anonymous online link. At the beginning of the online questionnaire, potential participants were presented with a written explanation of the study objectives, the voluntary nature of participation, and the measures taken to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. Contact information for the principal investigator was provided so that participants could ask questions or seek clarification. Participants then indicated their informed consent electronically before continuing to complete the questionnaire. Participants could discontinue their participation at any time by exiting the survey. No financial or material compensation was offered for participation.

To minimize any perceived pressure to participate, the research assistants used a standard invitation and did not collect identifying information or contact details. Participation was initiated solely through the survey link, and the research assistants had no way of knowing who chose to participate. The questionnaire was administered online using a secure web-based platform. After providing informed consent, participants accessed the demographic section and then answered a series of open-ended questions about their experiences as fathers of children with autism. Participants completed the questionnaire at a time and place convenient to them. The questionnaire was available for six months, and completion of the questionnaire took approximately 30 min. All open-ended questions and demographic items were mandatory. Importantly, because participation was voluntary, respondents could stop at any point if they preferred not to answer further questions. Given the sensitive nature of the questions, participants were informed that they could pause or stop the questions at any point and could contact the principal investigator if distress arose.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). The thematic analysis was conducted across the full sample of 127 fathers. Although participants included both Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox fathers, the study was not designed as a comparative subgroup analysis. Therefore, themes were developed to capture recurring patterns across the full dataset rather than to identify systematic differences between religious subgroups. All written responses were first screened to verify that participants met the inclusion criteria, whether the questionnaire was completed, whether the responses were coherent and relevant to the study topic, and whether the open-ended answers contained meaningful qualitative data. Once this was ensured, all written responses were first read several times to establish familiarity with the material. Significant text units were then identified and coded inductively, without the use of predefined categories. Each author first coded the responses independently, and the coding was then compared. Differences in coding and interpretation were discussed until agreement was reached. Similar codes were then grouped into data-driven categories, which were iteratively refined into broader themes that captured recurring patterns of meaning across participants’ descriptions. At the same time, the frequency with which key themes, categories, and expressions appeared among participants was recorded to indicate their relative salience within the data (see

Table 1. Descriptive frequency of themes and sub-themes across fathers’ responses.

	Theme/Sub-Theme	n	% of Fathers
Theme 1	Religiosity as a meaningful anchor for resilience in raising a child with autism	82	64.6%
Theme 2	Paternal Love as a Religious Practice of Accommodation	75	59.1%
Theme 3	Paternal Adaptation Practices within the Family Space on the Sabbat and Holidays	69	54.3%
3.1	Changing order and time	43	33.9%
3.2	Rules of participation and division of roles	38	29.9%
3.3	Persistence and repeated ritual as a way to create belonging over time	25	19.7%
Theme 4	Religious Laws and Authority as a Basis for Care Practices and Belonging	62	48.8%
4.1	Touch-related commandments and sensory sensitivity	34	26.8%
4.2	Sabbat and holidays: Boundaries, regulation, and difficult decisions	39	30.7%
4.3	Kosher laws and dishes as a precise daily practice	26	20.5%
4.4	Educating towards the commandments without coercion	31	24.4%
4.5	Rabbinical consultation as legitimizing accommodations	28	22.0%

). Because the themes and sub-themes were not mutually exclusive, participants could be represented in more than one theme or sub-theme. These counts are therefore presented descriptively and should not be interpreted as mutually exclusive categories or as quantitative prevalence estimates. We further conducted an exploratory comparison between Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox fathers. For this purpose, each theme and sub-theme was coded as a separate binary indicator, reflecting whether the father’s response included the relevant category. Chi-square tests were used to examine whether theme occurrence differed by religious affiliation.

The analysis was conducted by the authors. The first is a licensed counselor with approximately 15 years of professional experience working directly with families and individuals with autism, who holds a Ph.D. in education specializing in counseling and developmental disabilities. The second is a researcher specializing in autism who is currently a doctoral student. To enhance analytical rigor and reliability, the authors engaged in reflexive recording throughout the coding and theme development stages. Additionally, an external expert in qualitative research and psychology was consulted at key stages of the analysis. This expert reviewed the developing coding scheme, provided methodological feedback, and discussed areas of ambiguity with the authors. This contributed to improving the analytical framework and ensuring the validity and reliability of the findings.

Both authors identify as religious and are familiar with the cultural context of the participants, which supported interpretation of religious language and practices. Throughout the analysis, the authors discussed their perspectives and sought to remain closely grounded in participants’ wording.

3. Results

This section presents the results of the qualitative content analysis of fathers’ responses. The findings are organized around four themes, which suggest seeing religiosity not only as an identity or belief system, but also as a system of everyday practices through which fathers operate within the spaces of religious and family life. The fathers’ responses included descriptions of efforts to enable the child’s possible presence within household routines, to reduce burden and distress, and to maintain a sense of “being part of” even when participation is partial or mediated. These patterns are reflected through three analytical concepts that recur throughout the findings: accessibility, regulation, and belonging. In keeping with the focus of the research, the themes presented below emphasize the fathers’ practices and the way in which they are derived from religiosity and are employed towards care and belonging.

3.1. Theme 1: Religiosity as a Meaningful Anchor for Resilience in Raising a Child with Autism

Fathers’ religiosity served as a source of strength for many of the fathers that sustains fatherhood in a continuum of effort and uncertainty. Fathers framed parenthood in terms of serving a mission and as a privilege. For example, one father described: “It’s not easy at all, but it seems that it’s my mission,” Another father related, “It’s a very big mission and I feel there is a higher authority watching over him and us because of him.” Others described their child as a gift that changes the nature of their paternal identity and this is how they understand themselves as parents: “He changed me into a father who listens more and is softer.”

Within this framework, religiosity was also described as the source of emotional strength. It enabled fathers to translate exhaustion and difficulty to a feeling of direction and hope. For example, “We have great faith and pray that she will light our way.” At times, this even become a feeling of spiritual development: “Because of my child, we know better how to pray.” Alongside the same language of a sense of mission that arose, fathers also hinted at increased internal responsibility, as if the very definition obliges the father to hold on even when it’s hard.”

Amongst some of the fathers, the love that the child receives is also a religious symbolic expression that places the child as the heart of the home. One father wrote, “I wanted to share that my child is a true gift like no other; he is the ‘mezuzah’ on my home, I love him without any boundaries.” The image of the ‘mezuzah’ was presented not just as love, but also as a way to associate the child with the home, identity, and protection, that is, as a central part and not on the margins.

Amidst the fatigue and effort, the fathers frame parenthood in the language of faith that gives strength and meaning. Instead of describing coping as adaptation, they talked about the ability to lift one’s head up with divine help: “This is a gift from the Creator of the world, and God gives us divine help to lift my head.” Furthermore, for some of the fathers, love was framed as a real spiritual partnership and a sense of privilege to be part of a process that is sacred: “I would like to add that it is a great privilege to be a partner with God Almighty in raising and guiding holy and righteous children.” In other words, raising a child is not presented only as a therapeutic task but also as a relationship that has a dimension of mission and spiritual belonging.

Throughout this theme, religiosity is described as a source that strengthens belonging and meaning with the family and helps with the fathers’ emotional self-regulation vis-à-vis the ongoing burden. Finding internal meaning for challenging in raising a child with autism enabled these fathers to continue.

3.2. Theme 2: Paternal Love as a Religious Practice of Accommodation

In this theme, love is not described as a general emotion or as an abstract parental position, but rather, as a way of operation that receives clear religious validation. The fathers create paternal love as a practice that translates belief into everyday life—accommodations, concessions, internal precision, and primarily, a readiness to bear the ongoing tension between the religious ideal and the reality of a child with autism. One of the fathers phrased this in words that place accommodation as a direct response to divine expectation, especially in moments containing religious practices (prayer, Sabbat meals) that are “unseen”:

At times it’s hard to see the cause for the child’s behavior, but I strengthen myself that this is what God wants from me at the moment, even if it’s not the prayer that I would expect from the child or the kind of Shabbat [Sabbat] meal.

In this sense, love is described as a paternal religious stance that isn’t intended to “fix” the child to adapt to the existing framework, but to change the framework so the child can adapt to it. One father puts it as a movement in the opposite direction from the prevailing social expectation: “Adjustments aren’t always easy, but they teach me what true love is, a love that does not come to change the child to fit into the world, but to do everything so the world fits him a little more.”

Love as an accommodation is described as accumulated work that has a physical and spiritual price. The fathers emphasized that accommodation can bring a sense of calm and reduce the child’s distress, but at the same time, they are exhausting and require ongoing energy from parents:

On one hand, we feel relief, because the accommodation can really help him be calmer and feel less distress. On the other hand, there is a sense of exhaustion and even resignation. Sometimes we feel that we have to adapt the whole world, and it takes a lot of energy.

Within these statements it is possible to see the tension that reinforces the theme. That is, love isn’t solely a comfort, but also an ongoing effort, where the parents needs to choose accommodation and adaptation over and over again, even when it draws a price.

3.3. Theme 3: Paternal Adaptation Practices Within the Family Space on the Sabbat and Holidays

The Sabbat and holidays are days that express the core of religious life. They can be viewed as spaces where fathers’ religiosity meets the child in the most direct way. Surrounding Sabbat and holiday meals, the fathers described how the religious family ritual relating to the day itself became a field of work, in terms of shaping the order, time, stimuli, and rules of participation. Adaptations for the child with autism take place at the heart of religious life. These enable maintenance of the child’s belonging, even when it is not complete. The child remains part of the Sabbat, but in a way that is appropriate for them and reduces overload.

3.3.1. Changing Order and Time

Amongst some of the fathers, accommodation/adaptation begins with managing the ritual order. Instead of adhering to the order of what precedes the next, they describe changes that enable a softer entry to the meal, such that one father explained, “At the Sabbat meal, instead of blessing the wine first, we give him food first.” At times the accommodation is not only providing food first, but also enabling the child to be “in the moment” in their own way, as a different father detailed: “We had to let him continue on his own during the blessing on the wine…we just got to a point that it’s included in our regular program on the Sabbat.”

Other fathers described adjustments that are made over time, in an attempt to allow the child to remain within the family space until the end of the ritual. One father described a deliberate shortening of the meal: “A shorter Sabbat meal so he can stay with us to the end.” Using similar logic, some fathers pointed to a reduction in verbal or ritual overload, for example relating to discussions of Torah: “When the other siblings talk about the weekly Torah portion, we try that it won’t be in front of him.” This adds up to a single picture. In order for the child to be at the meal, the fathers engage in the pace, duration, and what to include without overloading the child. Rather than giving up on the Sabbat, the decision is to redefine what participation is possible and how to provide that without overload.

3.3.2. Rules of Participation and Division of Roles

Beyond changing the time or order, fathers described creating new rules for the table, aiming to maintain the meal as a stable space. For these fathers, the child’s place at the table is not a technical issue but a condition for calmness. One father related: “at the Sabbat table, he wants to sit in a certain place. There is no other option because it will lead to fights that he won’t understand”. Within the same set of rules, the order of speaking also becomes a way of being together. One father described a situation where adhering to who speaks first is a condition for quiet: “He also needs to be first to talk about the weekly Torah portion if someone else tries to be first it would be chaos.” In order to turn the Sabbat to a space where it’s possible to spend time, some of the fathers also add division of roles as part of the ritual. The goal is not an accidental distraction but a form of organizing space to prevent friction and give the child something to hold on to: “He is also responsible for setting the table, to prevent conflict.” It is evident that these rules are not meant to “educate” the child at the moment, but mainly to maintain quiet and the possibility of being together without arguments.

3.3.3. Persistence and Repeated Ritual as a Way to Create Belonging over Time

Alongside accommodations that target times of overload, some father described repeated family ritual as creating emotional belonging over time, even when the child’s verbal participation may barely exist in the beginning. One father related: “On Friday nights at the Sabbat meal, we go around the table so that each child can relate something good that happened to them during the week. For years he would say the same thing and we would just continue that way until one day it changed and he started to cooperate”. Here the belonging doesn’t take place in an instant, it is created slowly, with the same repeated ritual, even though there was nearly no participation in the beginning.

In this theme, the Sabbat and holidays are described as a time when the home needs to reorganize to enable the child with autism a possible presence at meals and rituals. The adaptations rest on the management of time, order, rules, and roles at the meals, and persistence that creates belonging over time. At the same time, this doesn’t always last; sometimes it ends in failure. Sometimes, the rigidity of the ceremony leaves no room for maneuverability, as in a father’s description of a Passover seder with his extended family:

Even though we prepared a ‘regulation corner’ for him and we tried to shorten the telling of the Passover story, my son couldn’t handle it…we couldn’t just take him out once he started to scream…I had to take him out of the room forcefully and sit with him together in an adjoining room.

3.4. Theme 4: Religious Laws and Authority as a Basis for Care Practices and Belonging

The Jewish commandments relate to day-to-day living, structuring all aspects of the day, including from what to wear, how to get dressed, how to prepare foods and which foods are acceptable, how to speak, how to occupy the day, etc. Fathers, as the religious teachers in the home, must try to find ways to keep the laws when considering a child with a sensitive body, sensory overload, and difficulty enduring long rituals. In these situations, the father is not left alone with the decision. He seeks a framework that will allow him to hold together several requirements that conflict with each other: to maintain the rules of the house, to continue teaching the commandments, and at the same time not cause the child suffering.

3.4.1. Touch-Related Commandments and Sensory Sensitivity

Many Jewish commandments meet the child via the body. One father explained: “At the religious level, all the education surrounding Torah and commandments is very challenging. Many commandments relate to sensory challenges such as wrapping phylacteries or putting on tzitzit (fringed garment).” Within this tension, the adaptations aim for are a measured relief that seeks to maintain participation in a possible dose rather than total avoidance. As another father described: “Because of his sensory sensitivity, we ease the commandments relating to touch—tzitzit are worn for a short time and a smooth fabric, phylacteries are wrapped for a minimal time or in a reduced form.” At time, the boundary is phrased simply: “He cannot wear tzitzit from wool.” The fathers did not justify these accommodations as just technical but as a choice that protects the child’s connection to the commandments for the long term: “He suffers from serious sensory sensitivity, which makes us seek an easing of Jewish law so that it doesn’t lead to him hating the commandments.”

3.4.2. Sabbat and Holidays: Boundaries, Regulation, and Difficult Decisions

Sabbat and holidays are a time when the home changes pace and typical regulation mechanisms are not necessarily available, increasing the risk of overload. One father described how the collapse of routine turns into a time that’s defined as pleasure into a time of distress, emphasizing a clear boundary of what will not be done even if the child is having difficulty: “The collapse of routine on the Sabbat and holidays cause him to fall apart and make the pleasure of the Sabbat into distress, but we still don’t give him his tablet.” At the same time, there are also compensatory practices that facilitate belonging without the obligation of full presence: “We let him leave the table early on Sabbat, and sometimes even not join at all…we set aside a quiet room for him.” The descriptions demonstrated that the fathers not only have to adjust the child to the Sabbat, but also select boundaries and determine what is permissible and what isn’t, even if there isn’t a full solution.

3.4.3. Kosher Laws and Dishes as a Precise Daily Practice

Jewish law also appears within the daily space of the home: food, keeping kosher, and dishes. Fathers described how picky eating and the sensory demands oblige them to manage keeping kosher as a precise practice: ‘Severe picky eating requires us to constantly use special utensils and careful separation, in order to maintain the boundaries of meat and milk without harming him because he wants certain food with certain utensils.” Another father described a similar solution: “We use disposable or designated utensils for him while maintaining the rules of the Haredi home.” Here, the adaptation rather requires the daily maintenance of an adaptation within the boundaries of Jewish law.

3.4.4. Educating Towards the Commandments Without Coercion

Finally, some fathers described religious education as a gentle and gradual process rather than a coercive one. “Religiosity makes it easy for him and does not force him to observe the commandments”. This suggests that, for these fathers, religious life should support the child and allow participation at a pace suited to their abilities, rather than demand immediate full observance. A similar idea was expressed by another father: “We bring him closer to religion in a gentle way…we do not force but rather invite him.” When the fathers discuss the details, a picture emerges of building participation through small, consistent adjustments: “He always washes his hands first at the Sabbat meal. We do not force him to wear tzitzit in kindergarten. Instead of forcing him to eat at a large table, he can eat at a small table in the living room.” In this way, education is described as a choice in a way that reduces struggle and enables belonging over time.

3.4.5. Rabbinical Consultation as Legitimizing Accommodations

In various responses it became clear that the statements “always in consultation with the rabbi” was not just a technical element, but a way to frame accommodations as decisions that have validity and not just a momentary solution or a silent concession. The consultation enabled fathers to make decisions both in relation to themselves and in relation to expectations at home, especially when questions of boundaries of Jewish law or concerns about harming religious education arise. One father described a solution made in consultation with the rabbi when his son requires calming on the Sabbat: “So on Shabbat, in consultation with our rabbi, he locks himself in a room and is on his tablet, even though it’s not permissible on the Sabbat…he knows he’s keeping it low profile, but it happens once or twice on the Sabbat.” For the father, the rabbi is described as allowing him to act in extreme situations without being left with a sense of guilt or doubt about the legitimacy of the action. At the same time, the consultation does not erase emotional price. One father detailed this duality: “On one hand, I’m happy I can give my child the things he needs to calm down, on the other hand, it’s hard. For example, the idea of violating the Sabbat and the feeling that he is different from his siblings.” Here it becomes clear that the community rabbi is not only a source of rulings, but someone that enables the father to carry moral and emotional tension within religious parenting. In other words, rabbinical counseling is described as a paternal practice in itself, a way in which the father “equips” the adaptations, gives them validity, and places them within a familiar religious language.

3.5. Summary

The findings show that fathers’ religiosity is much more than a cultural connection or identity; it is a source of meaning and resilience in a daily reality of effort and uncertainty. At the same time it is also a way of acting that guides actual parenting within a religious home. Four central themes arose from the data. The first presents religiosity as an anchor of a sense of mission and supervision that sustains the father within the difficulty. The second describes paternal love as a reglious practice and accomodation that includes concession, internal precision, and bearing the gap between a religious ideal and the child’s ability. The third situates the Sabbat and holidays as a charged domestic time that requires a re-management of order, time, and rules of participation to allow the child to be at the meal and part of the rituals. The fourth presents Jewish law and the community rabbi as a framework that gives validity to accommodations and organizes daily decisions around the commandments of contact, the boundaries of Shabbat, kashrut and utensils, and education for the commandments without coercion. Together, the themes indicate three recurring directions of action: accessibility, regulation, and belonging. The fathers described an attempt to make religious life possible for the child, to reduce overload and distress, and to keep the child part of the home and rituals even when participation is partial. However, this process involves ongoing tension and sometimes also difficult decisions and emotional costs.

To explore whether the occurrence of the identified themes and sub-themes differed systematically based on the fathers’ religious affiliation, an exploratory Chi-square analysis was conducted.

Table 2. Exploratory chi-square comparison of theme occurrence by religious affiliation.

Theme/Sub-Theme	Orthodox Fathers (N = 59)	Ultra-Orthodox Fathers (N = 68)	χ2	p
	n (%)	n (%)
Theme 1: Religiosity as a meaningful anchor for resilience in raising a child with autism	36 (61.0%)	46 (67.6%)	0.61	0.436
Theme 2: Paternal love as a religious practice of accommodation	34 (57.6%)	41 (60.3%)	0.09	0.760
Theme 3: Paternal adaptation practices within the family space on the Sabbat and holidays	30 (50.8%)	39 (57.4%)	0.54	0.463
3.1 Changing order and time	20 (33.9%)	23 (33.8%)	0.00	0.993
3.2 Rules of participation and division of roles	17 (28.8%)	21 (30.9%)	0.06	0.800
3.3 Persistence and repeated ritual as a way to create belonging over time	11 (18.6%)	14 (20.6%)	0.08	0.783
Theme 4: Religious laws and authority as a basis for care practices and belonging	28 (47.5%)	34 (50.0%)	0.08	0.775
4.1 Touch-related commandments and sensory sensitivity	17 (28.8%)	17 (25.0%)	0.23	0.628
4.2 Sabbat and holidays: Boundaries, regulation, and difficult decisions	16 (27.1%)	23 (33.8%)	0.67	0.414
4.3 Kosher laws and dishes as a precise daily practice	12 (20.3%)	14 (20.6%)	0.00	0.972
4.4 Educating towards the commandments without coercion	14 (23.7%)	17 (25.0%)	0.03	0.868
4.5 Rabbinical consultation as legitimizing accommodations	14 (23.7%)	14 (20.6%)	0.18	0.670

Note. Each theme and sub-theme was coded independently as present or absent in each father’s response. Because categories were not mutually exclusive, the chi-square tests are presented as exploratory comparisons.

presents the comparison of theme and sub-theme presence between Orthodox (N = 59) and Ultra-Orthodox fathers (N = 68). As noted, because the qualitative codes were compiled independently and were not mutually exclusive, these tests serve as an exploratory overview of subgroup distributions.

4. Discussion

This study sought to understand how Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox fathers in Israel describe their fathering of a child with autism in the everyday life of a religiously observant family. For these fathers, religiosity emerged not only as a belief system that supports coping and offers hope, but also as a practical framework that organizes life at home. It defines sacred times such as the Sabbat and holidays, sets boundaries of what is permitted and forbidden, and shapes decision-making when the child’s needs appear to conflict with religious demands, often through consultation with a rabbi (Finzi-Dottan and Gilerenter 2018; Libowitz 2023). Thus, the adjustments fathers describe are not one-time solutions, but an ongoing family process aimed at maintaining a religiously observant home while at the same time enabling the child to be inside the religious life of the family, its rituals, and its sense of belonging, even when the child’s participation is limited.

4.1. Fathers as Mediators

The findings do not represent a collection of separate themes, but rather a cumulative process in which each component reinforces the others. Fathers’ starting point, their own faith-based interpretation and religious identity, alters how they understand the child and their own paternal role (André et al. 2025; Manor-Binyamini 2019). This perspective enables them to implement concrete changes in family life, including daily routines, schedules, meal structures, and practices around the Sabbat and holidays. In other words, because the father’s faith or religious life orientation helps him reframe how he sees the child with autism and what it means to raise the child, he is able to adapt his lifestyle and the family routine and schedule to the child’s needs.

At the same time, the findings highlight a persistent inner tension. Fathers strive to uphold religious law and ritual, and to maintain a sense of a functioning religious family, while also needing to protect the child from suffering, sensory overload, and emotional collapse (Kéri 2023; Rudelli et al. 2021). Religiosity thus operates simultaneously as a resource and as a demand. This complexity is consistent with Davis and Kiang’s (2020) quantitative findings among mothers of children with autism, which showed that religious coping did not necessarily buffer the association between parental stress and well-being; in the present study, religiosity appears less as a direct stress-reducing factor and more as a framework through which fathers interpret responsibility, negotiate religious obligations, and shape everyday accommodations.

A similar dual pattern amongst Israeli religiously observant and ultra-Orthodox mothers of children with autism, where religious belief functioned as a source of acceptance, anchoring, meaning, and growth, while at the same time taking more difficult forms, such as viewing the situation as a test from God or even as divine punishment (Alon and Achituv 2024). The present findings extend this picture by showing how, among fathers, this ambivalence is expressed not only in meaning-making but also in concrete everyday decisions about how to soothe, regulate, and care for a child with autism while remaining within religious boundaries. For the fathers, religiosity provides meaning and hope, yet it also sets limits and at times, generates pressure or fear of transgression, such as around Shabbat observance, and feelings of guilt.

The tension between religious commitment and the need to protect the child is not only a description of hardship; it also offers an interpretive key for understanding the cost and meaning of the adaptations. The cost of these adaptations is not limited to the daily work of planning and adjusting routines, but also lies in the constraint under which adaptation takes place. Fathers are required to contain and soothe the child precisely at critical moments such as the Sabbat and holidays, yet some of the common regulation tools used in many families are either unavailable or considered illegitimate at those times. This situation may increase the burden because it narrows the range of solutions the family can draw upon and compels prolonged coping within binding religious boundaries (Kéri 2023; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026; Levante et al. 2025). Nonetheless, the findings suggest that this very constraint can generate adaptive creativity. When one solution is not possible, fathers describe developing alternative strategies that align with religious norms: modifying the structure of the meal, shortening its duration, reducing conversational overload at the table, creating quiet corners, establishing fixed scripts for moments of escalation, and gradually introducing religious practices that are sensory challenging for the child. In this sense, the constraint is not only a cost but also a mechanism that directs the family to build solutions within the religious framework rather than outside it (Kéri 2023; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026). This interpretation also resonates with Rudelli et al. (2021), who found that fathers’ perceptions of the importance of their paternal role were associated with greater caregiving self-efficacy and satisfaction, while burden was shaped by child-related challenges and perceived social support. In the present study, this role perception appears in a specifically religious form: fathers do not only manage burden, but actively mediate between the child’s needs, religious obligations, and the ideal of a functioning religious home.

The present findings suggest that when raising a child with autism, the paternal role may expand into a form of daily mediating work. Fathers may be understood as mediating between the child and religious ritual, between the ideal of a religious family and the child’s well-being, and between expected communal norms and the changing realities of family life at home (Rudelli et al. 2021; Koltai et al. 2024; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026). This is reflected in fathers’ descriptions of changing the order and timing of Sabbat and holiday meals, redefining rules of participation, adjusting religious practices to the child’s sensory and emotional capacities, and seeking rabbinic guidance when religious requirements and the child’s well-being come into tension. This mediating work is not only practical, but also interpretive and emotional, as fathers continually try to balance religious commitment with the child’s needs.

4.2. Reframing Paternal Roles Within Faith-Based Fatherhood

In many conservative religious communities, including parts of the ultra-Orthodox context, parenting is often shaped by gendered role expectations (e.g., Doyumğaç et al. 2026). Within these frameworks, mothers are more commonly associated with the day-to-day management of the home and with practical and emotional caregiving, whereas fathers are more often positioned as responsible for religious teaching, ritual leadership, and the transmission of communal values. At the same time, these patterns should not be understood as fixed or uniform, and recent scholarship points to greater complexity and to fathers’ meaningful involvement in everyday childcare and family care.

As a result, the father is typically expected to embody the figure of the educator, a moral authority who leads religious practices at home, for example reciting ritual blessings, structuring the Sabbat and festival meals, guiding Torah-related conversation at the table, and making decisions regarding the performance of commandments (Halgunseth et al. 2016; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026). In the Haredi-Lithuanian community, the central masculine ideal is Torah study, and the father is seen as primarily responsible for the child’s progress in religious learning, while learning difficulties may be perceived as a deviation from the expected norm that threatens the child’s future (Libowitz 2023).

The study’s findings highlight two important shifts in relation to the paternal role. First, fathers describe revising their parental role in light of raising a child with autism. In addition to guiding and setting expectations, they assume a central responsibility for creating conditions of accessibility and regulation, that is, a form of fatherhood oriented toward making it possible for the child to be inside family life even when they cannot meet the usual expectations of participation. Second, the fathers’ complexity of the role is not only “technical” in relation to the child, such as how to calm or regulate them, but also deeply identity related. They grapple with the question of who they are as religious fathers when they cannot fully inhabit the imagined role of educator, either in their own view or in the eyes of the community. This gap can intensify tension, guilt, and feelings of failure, even when the adaptations clearly benefit the child (Koltai et al. 2024; Schvarzman Sinai and Pearlman-Avnion 2026). This echoes Koltai et al.’s (2024) view of fatherhood in autism as involving an ongoing redefinition of the paternal role. In the present study, this redefinition appears in fathers’ efforts to adapt both their caregiving practices and their understanding of religious fatherhood.

Within this context, the recourse to rabbinic authority can be understood in a new light. Beyond the need for concrete guidance aligned with Jewish law, turning to a rabbi may serve as a way of coping with identity tension. Rabbinic approval allows fathers to align their adaptations with a legitimate religious narrative—“this is the right thing to do in this situation”—rather than framing them as a moral compromise or a personal failure in their paternal role. In this sense, the rabbi functions not only as a decision maker but also as someone who provides a framework that enables fathers to hold together religious commitment and the child’s well being (Libowitz 2023). This interpretation can be situated within a broader literature on gendered parenting roles in conservative communities, where fathers are often positioned as educators and bearers of authority, while mothers are identified with care and domestic management (Doyumğaç et al. 2026; Finzi-Dottan and Gilerenter 2018). Importantly, while the present study highlights fathers’ religiously situated caregiving role, these paternal practices should be understood as embedded within a broader family system in which caregiving, religious education, and accommodation are often negotiated between parents and other family members.

4.3. Positioning Autism Within Religious Contexts

The current study’s findings may also be read within a broader framework that extends beyond the specific paternal patterns identified here. They raise the question of how autism is conceptualized in religious contexts, and suggest the importance of attending more directly to the perspectives of individuals with autism themselves, rather than relying exclusively on adult accounts (e.g., Bustion 2017). In Jewish family contexts, this may be especially significant given the distinctive place of ritual practice, communal belonging, and family-centered observance in everyday religious life. This is consistent with the exploratory subgroup analysis, which did not reveal statistically significant differences in the occurrence of the themes or sub-themes between Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox fathers, despite the different sociological profiles of these communities in Israel. This suggests that, within the present sample, the main patterns identified in the qualitative analysis were broadly evident across both religious subgroups. There is some research that has explored how individuals with autism experience church attendance and the inclusion of these individuals in various church communities (e.g., Peach 2025; Waldock and Sango 2023), yet similar research within the Jewish community is still absent. Seen in this broader light, the present study not only contributes to understanding faith-based fatherhood, but also points toward the value of future qualitative and comparative work that explores how autism, parenting, and religion are experienced across Jewish and other faith traditions (Raiola 2025).

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Data were collected through an open-ended online questionnaire. While this design enabled the inclusion of a relatively large number of fathers and allowed them to articulate their experiences “in their own words,” it also limited the depth of inquiry, as no follow-up or clarifying questions were possible. Moreover, the quality and detail of the information depended on participants’ writing skills and their motivation to elaborate. Although the study included demographic and background information, it was not designed to test statistical associations between participant characteristics and theme occurrence. The themes were generated inductively from open-ended qualitative responses and were not mutually exclusive. Additionally, diagnostic status and functionality level of the child with autism relied on parent self-report and were not independently clinically verified. Because the study did not focus on severity-based comparisons, this limitation does not affect the main interpretations; however, clinically verified diagnostic and functional information would have allowed a more robust and in-depth analysis of how the nature of adaptations and fathers’ experiences may differ across levels of autism severity. The study’s Israeli-Jewish and largely religious-ultra-Orthodox context restricts the generalizability of the results to other religious or secular populations. Finally, because the present study relied exclusively on fathers’ accounts, it cannot fully capture parental interaction, co-parenting dynamics, or the ways in which mothers and fathers jointly negotiate caregiving, religious education, and accommodations for the child with autism.

Future research could deepen understanding through in-depth interviews and ethnographic observations during the Sabbat and holiday events, and by exploring marital and family dynamics from multiple perspectives, including the interactional processes through which religious accommodations are discussed, negotiated, and implemented within the family. An important direction for future research would also be to examine how fathers describe their parenting of a child with autism in relation to their parenting of other children in the family, in order to better understand the specific adaptations associated with autism. Future mixed-methods studies with larger and more balanced subgroup samples could examine whether fathers’ religious observance, religious belief, household religious observance, number of children, or the child’s functioning level are associated with different patterns of religious accommodation and paternal caregiving. Similarly, comparative studies across different levels of religious adherence would further illuminate cultural variations. Additionally, examining the views of rabbis and community leaders regarding “inclusion according to Jewish law” could enrich the socio-religious understanding of this phenomenon. Longitudinal designs may also clarify how religious and familial adaptations influence children’s sense of belonging and paternal well-being over time. Although the study focused on a Jewish context, research seems to indicate certain similarities in other conservative contexts in terms of gendered roles and religious coping (Doyumğaç et al. 2026). Future studies comparing religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) could better determine similarities and differences across faith traditions and expand the understanding of the role that religious belief plays in parenting children with autism.

4.5. Practical Implications

At the family level, the findings highlight several practical directions. Families may benefit from explicitly sharing the caregiving burden by clarifying roles among caregivers and, when appropriate, siblings, both during the day-to-day and at peak times such as the Sabbat and holidays. This includes deciding in advance who leads the ritual meal, who supports the child’s regulation, and how responsibilities alternate to prevent chronic fatigue. As family circumstances evolve over time, it can be useful to periodically map the current situation and identify what forms of support are both possible and appropriate. Examples include involving older siblings in limited, age appropriate ways, using extended family for transportation when available, or arranging external assistance such as a support person for the Sabbat or holiday events. Establishing brief, consistent family scripts for moments of escalation, such as who accompanies the child to a quiet space, when to return, and what constitutes successful participation, can reduce uncertainty and conflict. Professionals working with religiously observant families should consider not only the child’s behavioral profile but also fathers’ understanding of their paternal role, which may shape their sense of burden, satisfaction, and confidence in managing family life (Rudelli et al. 2021). Fathers may particularly benefit from emotional support that acknowledges feelings of guilt, self-criticism, and moral tension, especially when they experience conflict between protecting the child and maintaining religious norms (Koltai et al. 2024). Parents in general may also need sustained emotional support and structured parenting coaching to tailor strategies to their family’s needs, reduce stress, and sustain adaptation over time.

Beyond individual guidance, father-focused support frameworks may be especially valuable. Meeting other fathers who face similar tensions can reduce isolation, normalize ambivalence, and offer culturally meaningful ways of balancing the child’s needs with religious family life (Rudelli et al. 2021). Service providers should avoid treating mothers as the default parent in autism-related support, since actively including fathers may improve both the fit and sustainability of family interventions. Finally, adopting a flexible and inclusive definition of participation that values partial, gradual, and developmentally appropriate involvement can help protect the child’s sense of belonging while reducing frustration within the family.

5. Conclusions

This study delineates how Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish fathers organize family life around a child with autism within a religiously observant household. The findings indicate that faith and religious adherence serves not only as a source of meaning and hope but also as a framework that actively shapes daily decision-making—how routines are planned, how moments of strain are managed, and how participation in rituals and family time is made possible, even when participation is partial. The research thus contributes to the study of parenting a child with autism by showing that “family adaptations” are not merely responses to behavioral needs but represent an ongoing process of household organization in which religious identity, boundaries, and commitments are woven into concrete parental decisions. It also enriches the literature on fatherhood by suggesting that religious fathering may take the form of daily mediation between the child and ritual routines, between the ideal of a religious family and the child’s well-being, and between the need for stability and an ever-changing reality. It traces the considerations fathers emphasize, the sources of guidance they draw upon, and the daily choices through which they organize routines, manage moments of strain, and make participation possible within a religious household.