Developing Healthy Stepfamilies

Twenty Families Tell Their Stories

Patricia Kelley, Terry S Trepper

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317823247
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Medical Theory, Practice & Reference

View the inner workings of healthy stepfamilies through the stories of twenty families as they discuss how their households operate. This enlightening book takes a deeper look at what adults and children in stepfamilies say about such issues as discipline, money, family roles and relationships with ex-spouses, and the development of new traditions and rituals. Incorporating actual words of family members, Developing Healthy Stepfamilies shows many ways in which stepfamilies function well through adapting new and different "rules" to fit their circumstances. The book concentrates on positive rather than negative aspects of stepfamily life to help dim the image of stepfamilies as problematic and also to instill hope in would-be stepfamilies by normalizing their differences from biologically based families. Written with the intention of disseminating information and increasing understanding about stepfamily functioning, this book is useful for stepfamilies, their friends and relatives, and professionals such as teachers, clergy, physicians, and counselors. Developing Healthy Stepfamilies draws a colorful picture of the creativity and flexibility such families have brought to their lives and relationships. Emphasizing what works in stepfamilies instead of what does not, the book illustrates the process of integrating a stepfamily, the value of humor and patience, and the richness that can unfold for all members of the family. The author, a family therapist and educator, has drawn together information direct from stepfamily members themselves, providing readers with first-hand knowledge of the daily workings of this fast growing family form. A showcase of stepfamilies that are functioning well, Developing Healthy Stepfamilies helps show would-be stepfamilies that "it can be done." This is not a book of instructions; it illuminates the many ways in which stepfamilies can and do function. Some of the topics covered in the book include:

• definitions of a stepfamily
• a historical review
• demographics
• suggestions for new stepfamilies from established ones
• genograms of the families participating in the study As a group, stepfamilies are different from biologically based families in form and function. These differences are important for the families, and for those working with them, to recognize and accept as normal. Although intended to be an informative text for professionals and students in fields such as counseling and social work, this book also serves as a source of hope and encouragement for stepfamilies and prospective stepfamilies themselves.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This is a book about stepfamilies who are functioning well. So much that has been written on the subject has been about problems in these families. There are books for families telling them how to avoid these problems, and books for family counselors and therapists with suggestions for counseling these families. While some researchers have noted the strengths in stepfamilies (Bohannan and Yahraes, 1979; Coleman, Ganong and Gingrich, 1985; Crohn, et al., 1982; Duberman, 1975; Knaub, Hanna, and Stinnett, 1984; Peterson and Zill, 1986; Sager et al., 1983), most of the academic research on stepfamilies has been problem-focused and based on a clinical population, that is, families in treatment for problems. The research not based on the clinical population has, on the whole, studied the functioning of stepfamilies on several variables, using what Ganong and Coleman (1986) call the “deficit model,” comparing their functioning to biologically based families and viewing the differences as negative.

Those books and research articles are important; they are drawn upon and cited in this book and a suggested reading list is included at the end. The focus of this book, however, is different; it is about what does work well for some stepfamilies. This is a book of stories about living in stepfamilies, summaries of the stories told by the families themselves. Twenty families in a variety of different stepfamily situations describe how they live, what works, and what does not work for them. Common themes are noted, but there are no guidelines or answers, since each family is unique and has its own pattern. These stories demonstrate that there are many ways of doing things, that if one plan does not work, another might.

STEPFAMILIES TODAY

There are many kinds of stepfamilies. For this book I will use a definition borrowed from Emily and John Visher, founders of the Stepfamily Association of America, and authors of many books on the subject. They define a stepfamily as “a household in which there is an adult couple, at least one of whom has a child from a previous relationship” (Visher and Visher, 1988, p. 9). I agree with this definition, which is broad enough to include families who have primary custody of the children and those who do not, couples who are married and couples who are not, couples who are a man and a woman as well as same-sex couples, couples with one biological parent or two, and where the parent has been divorced, widowed, or not previously married. While these types of families have differences among them, they also share some common differences from the traditional biologically based family upon which society has developed its norms. I hope that this book will be useful for all types of stepfamilies, but for this project I interviewed only married couples with at least one stepchild (not biologically related to one adult) living in the home at least 50 percent of the time. This limitation was important so that similar questions could be asked of all families and comparisons could be drawn from them. The issues for married couples who have primary custody are different in many respects. Even with this limitation, there are a variety of family types represented here.

In my practice I see different issues for stepfamilies than for other families. While I have seen problems in stepfamilies, as well as in other families, I also know that stepfamilies can function well. In a study conducted of adolescents who were treated in out-patient mental health services (Kelley, Kelley, and Williams, 1989), only about half of the adolescents lived in single-parent or stepfamily situations. On the basis of some of the literature on the subject (Nunn, Parish, and Worthing, 1983; Wallerstein, 1985), I expected a higher rate of children of divorce represented in the clinical population. Yet, other literature suggested little difference in adjustment between children in biologically based or stepfamilies (Duberman, 1975; Santrock et al., 1982). More current research has emphasized the many factors that affect good adjustment (Hetherington et al., 1989). Thus, I became interested in those families who clinicians do not see and who are rarely written about: those stepfamilies who believe that they function well. Then I began to wonder, what are the elements of good functioning in stepfamilies? Several studies have isolated the variables of healthy family functioning (Beavers and Hampson, 1990; Epstein, Baldwin, and Bishop, 1983; Epstein, Bishop, and Levin, 1978; Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell, 1979), but the applicability of those variables to stepfamilies has not been tested. Other authors have stressed the importance of recognizing the differences in stepfamily structure and rules (McGoldrick and Carter, 1988; Visher and Visher, 1979, 1985, 1988; White and Booth, 1985; Sager et al., 1983; Schwebel, Fine, and Renner, 1991), but these differences were not empirically tested. The interviews discussed in this book are an outgrowth of an exploratory project to look at those differences.

The stepfamily is an important family form to study and understand, since it is believed to be the fastest-growing family form in the United States in the 1990s. The divorce rates in the United States grew rapidly in the 1970s and leveled off in the 1980s; 79 percent of the men and 75 percent of the women remarry, and about 60 percent of these adults have children (Glick and Lin, 1986). If you add to these numbers those families where one parent has died, or where a parent had not married at all, the large number of stepfamilies becomes apparent. Glick and Lin (1986) estimated that one in five children under 18 is a stepchild, and that this type of family will outnumber all others by the year 2000.

Although the stepfamily form is becoming normative, most of the people in these families were raised to view the proper family form as the biologically based family, and have tried to model their families after that traditional form. Most family theorists and researchers have recognized that stepfamilies have different forms and functions, and that their attempts to replicate the nuclear biologically based family can and has created problems (Johnson, 1980; Mills, 1984; Sager et al., 1983; Visher and Visher, 1979, 1985, 1988). The recognition and validation of a different family form by the stepfamilies and by their surrounding support institutions such as churches, schools, and work places is important.

Attempts have been made in recent years to normalize these families by using different names to decrease the bad connotation. Thus, we have heard the words “Blended” (Poppen and White, 1984), “Re-married” (McGoldrick and Carter, 1988), “Bi-nuclear” (Ahrons and Rodgers, 1987) (this term does have a slightly different meaning, see Chapter 6 for further discussion), and even “Re-constituted” (Robinson, 1980). However, since such families consist of stepmothers, stepfathers, and stepchildren, the term “stepfamilies” makes the most sense, and is clearest. There seems to be a recent trend to use the term “step” again. I support this trend, and believe that we can aim now to change the image by making the term respectable instead of changing it.

HEALTHY FAMILY FUNCTIONING

The concept of healthy or good family functioning is relative, but it needs to be addressed and defined here since this project is based on an assumption that such distinctions can be made. Certainly families that are functioning well are not free of stress or problems, for they are part of life. The idea of seeing families as either healthy or dysfunctional is not one that I find useful. Most family theorists and researchers agree that family functioning is a continuum, not distinct categories, and that there are several variables to assess along that continuum (Beavers and Hampson, 1990; Epstein, Baldwin, and Bishop, 1983; Epstein, Bishop, and Levin, 1978; Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell, 1979). The findings of these researchers have proven useful as a way to view families, and such a view makes sense theoretically.

In my experience, family competence is a multifaceted continuum and families change over time as to where they fall on this continuum. These changes come about, planned or unplanned, through events, passage of time, and circumstance. In this view, families are not functional or dysfunctional, for that locks them into place, at least in the mind of the labeler. Families act in more- or less-functional ways at different times under different circumstances. How a family responds to a particular situation depends on the view that family has about the meaning of that event, on where the family is in its life cycle when the event occurs (McGoldrick and Carter, 1988), and on other stressors (any change) at the time of the event. In other words, one family may react more negatively than another to one event, but at a different time, or on a different issue at the same time, the other family might react more negatively.

For reasons of biology and environment, some families seem to withstand overall pressure better than others, while some families seem to function at a lower level more of the time. Families can and do change; if I did not believe this, I would not be a family therapist. All families have strengths and all families have problems. I believe that the emphasis on dysfunctional families has led some families and some therapists into an over-focus on problems and an under-focus on the strengths, which skews the view of reality and keeps the families stuck in the sick role. Furthermore, such labels presume one right way of being. There are a wide range of family patterns which vary by individual family and also by cultural background; it is not respectful to hold up one way of being as a model for all families.

As a basis for assessing these families in this project, I have used the model and the scales of Beavers and Hampson (1990). They view family functioning in terms of the qualities of the relationships, communication, and exchanges; they see all families as falling on a progressive continuum rather than into categorical types; and they assume a potential for growth and adaptation. They also recognize that families at similar competence levels may have different styles of interacting and relating, and that these styles may also change over time, as the system develops and the individuals mature. Furthermore, these theorists outline the variables of family functioning, recognizing that most families are higher or lower on different variables. The variables that they address are: Structure, how the family allocates power and enforces rules, how close the members are to each other, what coalitions exist, and how flexible the coalitions and roles are; mythology, how family members view themselves and how congruent these views are with views of outsiders; negotiation, how efficient they are in problem solving; autonomy, how much individuality is allowed and expressed without losing closeness or support of each other; clarity of expression; and affect, how broad a range of emotions are allowed and expressed, the degree of expressed empathy, and the overall mood and tone of the family.

THE FAMILIES

Who are these families and how did they come to be interviewed for this project? This book is an outgrowth of a study of healthy stepfamily functioning, in which stepfamilies who defined themselves as functioning well were interviewed, and common threads were assessed (Kelley, 1992). Stepfamilies who were receiving services from family counseling agencies were also interviewed using the same schedule of questions, and differences between the two groups were noted. In addition to the interviews, which were videotaped, a standardized test of family functioning was administered to determine if the difference between the two groups was real, and it was. These differences are discussed in Chapter 2. In analyzing the videotapes, I was struck by the richness of the data, much of which would be lost in the research report. Over and above their answers to specific questions, all of the families had interesting stories which they were anxious to share with others.

Families were recruited for this project from throughout eastern Iowa and western Illinois in several ways. First, families who consider themselves as functioning well were recruited through a newspaper advertisement, discussion on a radio show, church bulletins, announcements at conferences on families, and persons conducting groups for stepfamilies. In all of these situations I noted that I was looking for stepfamilies who considered themselves to be functioning well for a study of healthy family functioning in stepfamilies. Then, to recruit the “service” families, those being served by agencies at the time, I placed fliers in the waiting rooms of six agencies serving families, so families could volunteer with no knowledge or coercion from the staff. When there were few such volunteers, agency staff did mention the study to clients. For recruitment into both the high-functioning and service groups, a small stipend was offered to each family in hopes of having a broad economic representation.

Although I aimed at diversity of the families for the study, certain parameters had to be set so there would be some basis for comparison. As noted earlier, only families where the adult couple in the home was married and where there was at least one child who was a stepchild to one of the adults, and who was living in the home at least half of the time, were recruited. This decision does not negate the importance of other forms of stepfamilies, but the issues are so different for unmarried couples and for families who do not have primary custody of children that findings would not be comparable. This decision, however, did reduce diversity. These families are heavily drawn from the middle and upper-middle socioeconomic classes, for both groups. Staff from agencies who serve predominantly lower-income clients told me that few of their families remarry, often for economic reasons.

The highest number of volunteers came from church bulletins; that method reached a large number of people, and they seemed willing to help. In some situations, the minister or rabbi suggested to a family that they volunteer. Their referral as a high-functioning family was viewed as a compliment by many family members. It is interesting to note that though the media generated several inquiries, none of the families in the study were recruited by this method. In all, 20 families were interviewed; 14 who were recruited as high functioning and six from the population receiving clinical services. After family members contacted me as potential volunteers, I interviewed them by phone to ensure that they met the criteria and to explain the procedures to them. I did lose several families through this process; a few were not appropriate for this study because the stepchild was no longer living at home, the couple had not yet married, or, in two situations, the adults who contacted me had been raised in stepfamilies but were not living in one now. I acknowledged that they knew the subject well, but I was looking for families with an immediate perspective. Others chose not to participate when they found out that the interviews would be videotaped, and in several situations one family member agreed to participate and the idea was vetoed by a spouse or child. I asked that all persons living in the home 50 percent or more of the time be present for at least part of the interview. All of the families complied with this request, although small children were not required to stay for the entire interview. Some parents gave the incentive money to the adolescents to gain compliance. Most of the families that were interviewed enjoyed the process and said so. Only one family, a service family, seemed overtly stressed by the process. The rate of drop out (those who agreed to participate and changed their minds before the interview) was about twice as high for the service families as for the high-functioning families, with a ratio of five to two.

The interviews were conducted in the families’ homes, except for two situations where the families chose to come to my office. I conducted all of the interviews following an interview schedule, but allowed time for free discussion and recommendations from the family. A graduate student, as a research assistant, videotaped the interviews, asked questions of her own, and requested clarification on some points. The average length of the interviews was 1 1/2 hours, and they often assumed a social and festive air as the families enjoyed discussing themselves. Since the focus of the interviews was not on problems but on what worked and what did not, very few of the families in either group responded with caution or defensiveness. While there was serious discussion, the interviews were lively, with good humor prevailing.

The remainder of this book introduces you to the families and summarizes their interviews. I hope that you find their ideas on a variety of topics useful, and that you enjoy their stories.

Chapter 2

The Families

In this chapter, the families are introduced, first individually and then as a group. The 20 families are given names alphabetically, to aid the reader in remembering which family is which as their ideas are discussed in the following chapters. The names are chosen at random, to fit alphabetically and are not meant to represent any aspect of the family, nor are the names similar to their real names in any way. Generally, ideas distilled from these families’ stories will be summarized around common themes and ideas; specific stories will also be used to highlight certain examples.

These families represent diverse family structures and a range of situations. They lack the ethnic diversity I had hoped for, but there is a wide range of income levels, from a family living in public housing to two families with incomes over 80,000 dollars, even though the families were clustered in the middle ranges. These are all midwestern families; most are drawn from three larger urban areas, with a few each from the small university community where I am based and from the surrounding rural area. For this book, the families from the university town are included in the urban category, to distinguish them from the rural communities.

Fourteen of these families were recruited as “high functioning” by self-definition, and six were recruited from counseling agencies serving families; they are referred to as high-functioning and service families in this book. The structure of each family will be referred to as simple (only one partner was previously married or had a child by a previous relationship) or complex (both partners were previously married or had children by a previous relationship). A “stepfather family” consists of a mother, her biological c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• Foreword
• Preface
• Chapter 1. Introduction
• Chapter 2. The Families
• Chapter 3. Discipline
• Chapter 4. Family Roles
• Chapter 5. Money Management
• Chapter 6. Managing Relationships
• Chapter 7. Family Rituals and Traditions
• Chapter 8. Suggestions for Others
• References
• Other Books on the Subject
• Index