VIEWS
Summer
1995
Views
is published by the Minnesota Association for the Education of Young
Children and the Minnesota Council on Family Relations
Table
of Contents
From
the Editor
by Bryan G. Nelson
Divorce: The Impact on Half of All Children
by Meg Wilkes Karraker, Ph.D
Child Custody: Solomon's Choice
by Nancy Zalusky Berg
Child Support: A Right of Children - A Responsibility
of Parents
by Laura Kadwell
A Step in the Right Direction: Children in Blended Families
by Deb Clemmensen
A Stepparent's Personal Perspective
by Bob Brancale
Early Childhood Professionals Can Accommodate Diverse
Families
by Kristen Wheeler
Factors Guiding Custody Decisions
Defining Legal and Physical Custody
What Is the Stepfamily Association of America (SAA)?
I've
been editing VIEWS since the 1980s (NEWS, before that) and this issue
has had to be the most challenging. The main focus of this issue is
blended families. Perhaps I'm too close to the topic. I'm a stepparent
and I was also raised in a blended family. Is there something different
about this type of family? Something significant enough to devote an
entire issue of VIEWS to? We think so.
As
I read through each article, questions I've had were answered. Some
of those answers provoked even more questions about the role of family,
individual rights and responsibilities, and society. I understand that
"family," as most of us know it, has changed and continues
to change. Though, for me, a blended family seems (and has always seemed)
"normal," rather than something new or evolutionary. Perhaps
it is becoming a "norm" given the increase in divorce and
the increasing number of blended families.
We
start with the big numbers. Divorce: The Impact on Half of All Children,
by Meg Wilkes Karraker, provides information about the prevalence of
family breakups. The next piece, by Nancy Zalusky Berg, an attorney,
discusses custody. It provides a fascinating historical perspective
on how the courts have decided, over the years, who gets custody of
a child. We then receive useful information from Laura Kadwell, who
works for the Department of Human Services, about current and future
initiatives in child support enforcement.
Deb
Clemmensen, a psychologist from the Washburn Child Guidance Center,
talks about A Step in the Right Direction: Children in Blended Families.
Then, we have a personal perspective by a stepparent and adoptive father,
Bob Brancale, a Minneapolis Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE)
teacher. Kristen Wheeler, from the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association,
provides practical ideas about what practitioners can do to accommodate
and support diverse families. Finally, Susan Hoch, from Oleanna Books,
provides us with a list of additional books and resources, all from
Minnesota, on the topic of blended families.
Despite
the resources offered, I couldn't help but feel a little "down"
after reading these articles. Are blended families so difficult? Or,
perhaps, is society's support of families inadequate? As Ms. Kadwell
points out, "Program changes will not end the anger and frustration.
"The Brady Bunch, a very popular television show, and more recently
a movie, makes the blended family look fun. All your family's problems
can be resolved in an hour, minus commercials.
As
I have parented over the years and spent time with children and families,
I have had my share of fun. But there have been many challenges. From
the experience, I've realized that one must build one's own support
and hope; to be in charge of one's life. To remain hopeful and positive,
and to have fun, requires developing supportive relationships with one's
family, other families, friends, people we meet at work, and through
the many family programs available. For relationships to last and thrive
requires work and support. Our vocation is to make it a little easier
for families for all types of families to learn how to build that support
for themselves.
Thanks,
GoodBye, and Welcome
I want to say "thank you" and "goodbye" to Beth
Sandell as editor of VIEWS. She's been professional, fun to work with,
and inspiring. Beth is one of those "detail" persons who are
essential to a well edited and professional publication. I'll miss her
as a coeditor. Fortunately, we won't have to miss her too much, since
she is the new President of MNAEYC. I also want to welcome our newest
member to the VIEWS editorial staff: Karen Kurz-Riemer, Karen has years
of experience working in the early childhood education field. She comes
ready with ideas and energy and, in fact, was involved in editing the
last issue of VIEWS, working with Beth in getting the publication out.
Welcome to our new coeditor!
Bryan
G. Nelson
by
Meg Wilkes Karraker, Ph.D.
Although the rates of divorce have undulated around certain historical
events (Arising dramatically in the decade following the Second World
War), the frequency of divorce has increased throughout most of this
century. At the turn of the century, one out of ten marriages ended
in divorce. Today, one out of two marriages ends in divorce. Some estimate
that for those entering marriage today, ("baby busters," the
cohort born after the mid 1960s), as many as two out of three may have
marriages that end in divorce. The rate of divorce (the number of divorces
per 1,000 women aged 15 and older) more than doubled between 1960 and
1979, from 9.2 to 22.8 in 1979 (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics,
1990). By the late 1980s, the rate had fallen slightly, to 20.7 in 1988
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994), and it now appears to have stabilized.
Part of this stabilization is, without a doubt, due to the tendency
of people to avoid marrying at younger ages, as early age at marriage
is associated with immaturity, premarital pregnancy, less education,
and lower socioeconomic status. Until the mid 1970s, the most frequent
cause of marriage dissolution was death of a spouse. However, projections
seem to indicate that fewer than half of all recent marriages will last
through the life of the spouses (Norton and Moorman, 1987).
The
increase in divorce has come about because of decreased economic dependence,
decreased social, legal, and moral constraints, and increased expectations
for marriage. Lamanna and Riedmann (1991) say that the very nature of
marriage has changed. Since most individuals who divorce have children,
about half of all children (one third of them white and two thirds of
them African-American) will experience the dissolution of their parents'
marriage by the time they are 16 (Thornton and Freedman, 1983).
The
Impact of Divorce on Children
Research
suggests that the quality of family relationships and not family structure
(i.e., living in a two parent versus a single parent family) has the
greater effect on children. In fact, professionals in child and family
development are in great agreement with findings from Wallerstein's
longitudinal studies of the effects of divorce on children (Wallerstein
and Blakeslee, 1989). These findings indicate that children fare better
in terms of emotional stress and self-esteem when living in a supportive
single parent family than in a two-parent family characterized by unresolved
conflict. However, the effects of divorce on children can certainly
include loss of family identity and interaction with a significant adult,
as well as the stigma of a "broken" family. In contrast to
the popular images of children of divorce, Weiss (1979) portrayed the
benefits of the single parent family as including the opportunity for
development of responsibility and for greater participation in both
minor and major decision making in the family. However, subjects in
Wallerstein's study (a relatively small sample of 131) found children
of divorce more typically expressing anxiety, depression, or guilt regarding
the divorce (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). While others have challenged
her pessimistic view of the effect of divorce on children, her work
is consistent with that of some later research that has found that the
greater disorganization of divorced households is associated with greater
behavioral and academic problems (Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1991; Guidubaldi
and Perry, 1985; Hetherington, 1989). Communication with children, expression
of affection, and consistency of discipline may be harder for parents
who are divorced (Fine, Moreland, and Schwebel, 1983; Wallerstein and
Blakeslee,1989).
In
addition, some research has suggested that the effects of divorce on
children differ according to gender. The relationship between divorced
mothers and their sons may be particularly stressful, as these mothers
may have more difficulties concerning issues of authority (Baldwin and
Skinner, 1989; Coughlin, 1988; Hetherington, 1989). Girls growing up
without a father may have more difficulty relating to men (Hetherington,
1973) or may even become sexually active earlier (Kinnaird and Gerrard,1986).
Wallerstein
and Blakeslee (1989) termed the difficult adjustment of girls a "sleeper
effect," with sadness and hesitancy about marriage and childbearing
remaining into adolescence and adulthood even ten years after the parents'
divorce. In contrast, in the area of life time achievement, my research
on the adult role plans of adolescent females found the highest levels
of educational aspiration to be among African-American high school seniors
living in mother only families (Karraker, 1992).
Typical
of more moderate positions regarding the effect of divorce on children
is that of Amato and Keith (1990). From a comprehensive analysis of
published research, they concluded that, while modest and overshadowed
by other factors in child development, the children of divorce show
statistically different levels of adjustment than children who do not
experience their parents' divorce. However, again, the complexity of
child development and the complication of living in a conflict habituated
two parent family suggest that a bonded single parent may be more advantageous
to a child's development.
Some
of the most negative impacts of divorce are inextricably tied up with
economic deprivation and, particularly, with what has been called the
"feminization of poverty." For men, post-divorce income averages
90 percent of their predivorce income; for women, post-divorce income
averages 67 percent of their predivorce income (Duncan and Hoffman,
1985). Although mother-headed households represent 16 percent of United
States families, mother headed families constitute 46 percent of the
households living below the poverty level (Zopf, 1989). Following divorce,
women are typically responsible for both child rearing and economic
support, and Weitzman (1985) has criticized no-fault divorce laws for
placing both older women and mothers of young children at particular
risk. Even middle-class children whose parents divorce usually experience
some degree of relative deprivation in their material standard of living.
Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) found that 60 percent of their subjects
were likely to complete less education than their fathers, and 45 percent
were likely to complete less education than their mothers. However,
the same study found that daughters seemed to suffer more than sons
in this regard, with fathers more likely to provide financial support
for their sons' college education than for their daughters' education.
Children's
Adjustment to Divorce
Parental
cooperation and continuance of ties with a noncustodial parent are pivotal
factors in children's adjustment to life after divorce. The most difficult
period for psychological adjustment to divorce appears to be the year
immediately following the divorce (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). The
children in Wallerstein's study stabilized by the second year, and most
children reached at least a reasonably good degree of mental health
by the fifth year(Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). However, more than a
third of the children in that study did not appear to have adjusted
well, and anger regarding divorce was a significant factor in the lives
of almost a quarter of the children studied.
These
observations are further complicated by the redivorce rate: second marriages
have a higher probability of divorce and remarried couples arrive at
the decision to divorce more quickly than once married couples (Norton
and Moorman, 1987). The families and the children of redivorcing couples
can expect to repeat the stresses and adjustments of divorce. Although
little attention is devoted in the sociological literature to the roles
of extended family and community resources in fostering a child's adjustment
to divorce, certainly the presence of supportive relatives and skilled
professionals can be of immeasurable value in easing the child's passage
through the stages of divorce. The prevalence of supportive therapeutic
counseling initiatives for children in primary schools whose parents
are divorcing demonstrates the potential role that family life educators
can play in children's adjustment in this area.
Meg
Wilkes Karraker, Ph.D., Director of the Luann Dummer Center for
Women, was recently promoted to associate professor of sociology at
the University of St. Thomas. Her teaching and research interests include
adolescence, gender, and poverty. Please address correspondence to (Internet)
MWKarraker@StThomas.edu or Mail #4352, 2115 Summit Avenue, University
of St.Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105.
by
Nancy Zalusky Berg
What does it mean to have custody of a child? Is it different from the
legal relationship and, more importantly,the emotional relationship
one has with a child in an intact marriage? Does the divorce decree
expand or lessen the rights and responsibilities that parents had to
their children prior to the divorce? Many of these questions are ill
defined and poorly addressed by law.
Historically,
children were defined as property and divided according to property
laws. For example: "By the laws of England, the custody of all
legitimate children from the hour of their birth belongs to the father.
If circumstances, however urgent, should drive the mother from his roof,
not only may she be prevented from tending upon the children in the
extremity of sickness, but she maybe denied the sight of them; and if
she should obtain possession of them by whatever means[she] may be compelled
by the Writ of Habeas Corpus to resign them to her husband or his agents
without condition without hope."
So
began Sergeant Talfourd's argument for the British Infants Custody Act,
Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Volume 39 (1837). This act became law
in 1839. By the beginning of the 20th century, the American mother enjoyed
the right to custody in only nine states and the District of Columbia,
and only if a state judge found her morally and economically worthy
of motherhood. Thereafter, the "tender years" doctrine (which
held that children belonged in the custody of their mother) dominated
until the advent of the so-called gender neutral approach, with which
we currently struggle. The "tender years" doctrine simply
switched the gender preference in many cases without regard to the psychological
attachment the child might have to one or both parents.
Present
Day Law
Minnesota
statutes have established a bifurcated approach to the notion of custody.
It is imperative for any parent going through a marriage dissolution
proceeding to understand that there are two elements to the determination
of custody. Legal custody refers to the right to determine a child's
upbringing including education, health care, and religious training
all of which involve making major decisions that affect a child's life.
Uniformly, the practice and the directive of our statutory system is
that there be an award of joint legal custody unless the parents are
so incapable of working together that such an award would cause harm
to the child. For example, there is a refutable presumption that a joint
award is not in the best interests of the child if there is a history
of domestic abuse in the family.
Our
statutory system directs the courts to determine a custodial award,
whether it be physical or legal, based on the best interests of the
child. The best interest determination by the trial court is guided
by 13 elements that are prescribed by statute (see "Factors Guiding
Custody Decisions"). The statutory system prohibits the court from
applying one factor to the exclusion of all others. Each of these factors
has been litigated and further defined by case law. The interpretation
of these factors is the substance of a custody dispute.
The
best interest determination was eloquently described to me by a judicial
officer who indicated that the needs, interests, and desires of the
parents were of no relevance in the custody determination. Rather, determination
of custody was based exclusively on the child's needs and on those factors
that would enhance the child's best interests. This simple fact is frequently
forgotten by parents. Unfortunately,most parents involved in contested
custody proceedings focus on their own needs rather than on the needs
of their children.
The
second assertion of a custody award is the physical custody of the child,
which means, by definition, the routine daily care and control and residence
of the child. As is true with joint-legal custody, joint physical custody
means that the routine daily care, control, and residence of the child
is structured between the parties.
Frequently,
the distinction between joint legal and joint physical custody becomes
blurred during a divorce. The word "joint" becomes a volatile
button to be pushed by either party since it relates to the notion that
they must continue cooperate and advocate control over one or aspects
of the child's care. Ironically, it is during a divorce -at a time when
the level of trust and respect is at an all time low- that a parent
must attempt to fairly evaluate their child's needs and hope that their
estranged spouse will do the same.
The
court's determination of a custodial decision is based upon the judge's
discretion. It is within the sole discretion of a court to interpret
and analyze the testimony and information received. A judge will evaluate
the credibility and liability of the testimony he or she hears from
the parents and from any expert who testifies. Very often, a custodial
dispute will come down to a battle of experts and to which parent is
more believable.
Custody
"Experts"
Who
is an expert? Is it any individual who has special and particular knowledge
about children and their needs? In most instances a child psychologist
tries to evaluate the situation and makes recommendations to the court
as to the proper custodial arrangement. Specifically, the child psychologist
will make a custody recommendation by evaluating the best interest standards
described previously. However, unlike a judge, the child psychologist
will apply all of his or her experience and education to answer the
question, "What is in the best interests of the child concerning
custody?" Usually, the psychologist or psychological evaluator,
as they are often called, will have one or more sessions with the estranged
parents. Depending upon the age of the child, sometimes they'll meet
with extended family members or contact other professionals, such as
teachers, who are involved in the child's life. Based upon their interviews,
notes, and sessions with the parents, they will then make a report detailing
their findings. The report contains a summary and provides a recommendation
as to what the psychologist believes is the best custodial arrangement
for the child or children.
Any
professional involved in the very difficult process of a psychological
evaluation will tell you that their recommendations are often made with
a wish and a prayer. The tests conducted are fallible and the process
of the evaluation itself, given limited contact with the various parties,
is narrow in scope and subject to error.
Third
Party Rights to Custody
The
law concerning the custody of children stems from the English legal
tradition of property rights. Thus, any person who is not a parent to
a child is a legal stranger. Recent legislative efforts have granted
rights to grandparents to intercede in legal proceedings involving their
grandchildren and to assert rights to maintain contact.
While
stepparents have no defined legal rights, they have the same rights
as any third party to pursue the custody of a child. There is a clear
preference for custody to remain with the biological parents. Thus,
an action by a stepparent to pursue custody of his or her stepchild
in a divorce proceeding will generally succeed only if the biological
parent is extremely inadequate.
The
matter of biological preference frequently produces child custody determinations
that appear harsh. For example, newspaper accounts detailed the high
profile dilemmas of Baby Richard and Baby Jessica, each of whom was
placed for adoption and then, years later, taken from their adoptive
homes and returned to their biological parents when their fathers stepped
forward to contest the adoptions. The painful sagas of Baby Richard
and Baby Jessica reveal the current conflict in the law between the
rights of biological parents and the rights of adoptive, or psychological,
parents. Presently, the law deems the biological attachment to the child
as superior to psychological attachment. To some extent this makes sense;
it at least allows for greater certainty in making difficult custodial
decisions. A psychological versus a biological approach to a custodial
award opens a Pandora's box in the determination of child custody based
upon influences that are highly subjective and volatile in their interpretation.
For example, mothers whose children are in child care eight to ten hours
a day could conceivably run the risk of a custodial battle over who
is the real psychological parent the mother or the child care provider.
Further, a father whose children reside with the mother as the custodial
parent following a divorce would run a real risk of having not only
his emotional but his legal relationship to his children suborned by
subsequent marriages.
As
the familial relationships within our society continue to become multifaceted,the
superiority of biological preference in an award of custody will undoubtedly
undergo significant challenge. Consider,too, the legal rights that have
been afforded to family members over the last ten years: Children suing
their parents for divorce, third parties suing for custody of children
to whom they have no blood relation, and foster parents pursuing an
adoption of a child against relatives. More layers of complexity can
and will be added to these already difficult legal family issues when
questions of race and culture (e.g., biracial and multiethnic situations)
are put into play as well.
Nancy
Zalusky Berg is a partner in the firm of Berg & Walling in downtown
Minneapolis. The firm's practice is limited to family and juvenile law.
Kristin
Erickson, an associate with the law firm of Berg & Walling,
Provided research and writing assistance for this article.
by
Laura Kadwell
A growing number of children are living with only one of their biological
parents either because their parents are divorced or because they were
born to unmarried parents. These children are entitle to financial support
from the other parent, but many do not get the support they are due.
This endangers the lives of children who must rely on child support
to meet their most basic needs, frightens custodial parents who wonder
how they will pay the bills from month to month, frustrates noncustodial
parents who want more than just a financial relationship with their
children, and challenges the child support enforcement program as it
tries to meet an increasing demand for its services.
Child
support is a controversial subject, primarily because people have such
varying experiences with and wide ranging expectations for child support.
This article defines child support, explains why child support is important,
provides basic information about establishing and enforcing child support
orders in Minnesota, and discusses changes proposed for the child support
program.
What
Is Child Support?
Child
support is money paid toward the economic support of children by parents
who are not living with their children. It includes money to pay for
child care and medical care. All children who are living with only one
of their biological parents are potentially entitled to receive child
support from the other parent. They may not be receiving support, however.
And,where receiving support, they may not receive all the support they
are due on time every month.
Why
Is Child Support So Important?
Child
support is important because: (1) children need the money, and (2) parents
need to be responsible for their children. It costs almost $1,000 a
month to provide a child in Minnesota with food, clothing, shelter,transportation,
child care, and health care. Yet the average order for a family in Minnesota's
child support system is only $264 per month, and the family may have
more than one child. Most families need to send two wage earners into
the work force in order to support their children. Families with only
one wage earner do not have that option and must rely on child support
to meet the children's basic needs.
Providing
economic support for children is a fundamental obligation of every parent;
enforcing payment of child support emphasizes this responsibility. Often,
when one parent is not contributing to the support of children, the
other must turn to public assistance for support. In fact, of $551 million
now owed in back child support in Minnesota, $378 million (over two-thirds)
is owed to the taxpayers as repayment of the costs of supporting children
whose parents were not paying the full amount of support owed. If all
parents supported their children to the extent they were able, taxpayers
would be relieved of a significant obligation.
How
Does Child Support Work?
Parents
who need to establish paternity or to set, modify, or enforce a child
support order can do so by seeking the services of a private attorney
or by contacting their county child support agency. Child support services,
originally available only to families receiving Aid to Families With
Dependent children (AFDC), are now available to all families who need
them. A nominal fee of $25 is charged to families not receiving AFDC.
Establishing
and enforcing child support involves five basic steps:
- Locating
the absent parent. Often, the custodial parent does not know where
the noncustodial parent is. The child support system provides services
for locating parents so orders can be established and enforced. These
services are especially important when the noncustodial parent has
left the state.
- Establishing
paternity. For children born to married parents, this is not generally
an issue. For children born to unmarried parents, however, paternity
must be established before child support can be ordered. Parents who
want to establish the paternity of their child can do so by signing
a document called the Recognition of Parentage. Once signed, this
document has the force of a court order of paternity. If there is
a dispute between parents about paternity, one parent may have to
take the other to court to get a court order of paternity. Genetic
testing is available to parents with questions about paternity and
can establish a likelihood of paternity.
- Establishing
a child support order. A child support order must be established through
either a court or an administrative process. Minnesota law provides
guidelines for the amount of the support, which is based primarily
on the income of the noncustodial parent.
- Enforcing
the order. The most common way to collect the amount ordered is through
income withholding. Employers withhold income for child support just
as they withhold it for payment of income taxes. The amount withheld
is forwarded to the county and then to the custodial parent for support
of the children. Among other collection tools available for enforcing
child support orders are interception of taxes and lottery winnings,
suspension of occupational licenses, and denial of student grants.
Both the United States Congress and the Minnesota Legislature also
are considering proposals to suspend drivers' licenses of noncustodial
parents who are not paying child support.
- Modifying
the order. After a time, most child support orders are outdated. They
must be modified so they continue to provide adequate support of the
children. In addition to allowing modification when the circumstances
of parents or children change, Minnesota is the only state that updates
orders every other year by providing a cost of living adjustment.
How
Can Child Support Be Improved?
The
child support program comes under frequent criticism for not responding
quickly and adequately to requests for service and for failure to devote
enough attention to difficult cases.
Noncustodial
parents also criticize the program for not addressing their issues of
visitation and custody. Some of these criticisms are the direct result
of increasing demands on limited resources. More than 200,000 children
depend on Minnesota's child support program for help;most of them are
in families that do not receive public assistance. Between 1991 and
1994, the amount of support collected through the child support program
increased 53 percent and the number of cases increased 14 percent. These
increases are straining the resources of the program and are frustrating
both people who need services and those who are trying to provide them.
A number of improvements to the child support program are now in the
works:
- Administrative
process. Probably the single most significant change being made to
Minnesota's child support system is implementing an administrative
process to establish child support orders. This process, which is
expected to be available in all counties by July 1, 1996, will help
parents establish orders without going to court and without using
attorneys. Child support workers can set orders when there is no dispute
between the parents. Highly trained administrative law judges can
resolve disputes about support even over the telephone, when appropriate.
This new administrative process will cut down on resources both time
and money that are needed to establish and modify orders. Many counties
even use this process to establish paternity.
- Employer
reporting. Both Congress and the Minnesota Legislature are considering
legislation to require employers to report new hires. New hire reports
will be matched against child support orders, so income withholding
can begin without delay. New hire reporting will also help child support
workers locate noncustodial parents who should be paying support.
- Enhanced
computer system. The nuts and bolts of child support will be done
more quickly and uniformly with PRISM a statewide computer system
that will make many of the steps necessary to setting and enforcing
support without worker intervention. With the computer performing
routine functions, child support workers will be able to focus their
attention on the more difficult and time consuming cases: those needing
enforcement across state lines and those in which the noncustodial
parent is self-employed.
- Payment
center. The Legislature also is considering a proposal to receive
and disburse child support payments at the state level. Taxpayers
save money by having one system (instead of 84 systems) provide this
function, and rules for disbursement will be applied uniformly throughout
the state. This proposal will also help employers by allowing them
to send one income withholding check that will cover all employees
in the state (now they must send one to each county where an employee
owes child support).
- Guidelines.
In 1996, the Legislature will consider a proposal to change Minnesota's
guidelines to: (1) consider the incomes of both parents when setting
support; (2) base support on the cost of raising children; and (3)
standardize many decisions that must be made in setting child support
orders. These changes will help parents and workers determine support
quickly, standardize support orders, and reduce litigation.
These
and other program changes will help children get the support they are
due. They will not, however, solve many problems that often come to
the doorstep of the child support program. Changes in the program will
not end child poverty, because many parents whether single or married,
living with children or separate from them do not have enough money
to support their children. Program changes will not end the anger and
frustration of parents who expected something else from each other and
now are disappointed in what they have. They will not create families
where relationships do not exist. They will not fill a child's need
for love and attention.As a society, we can and must accomplish these
things in other ways through our families and communities.Child support
is important for children.It is not, however, all that children need.
Laura
Kadwell is Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division, Minnesota
Department of Human Services
by
Deb Clemmensen
My family began with Mom and Dad and Sam and me. Then Mom and
Dad divorced, and boy, I cried. "Cause suddenly, instead of four,
my family felt like three, and it took a little while 'till Sam and
me could see that what we'd really done was multiplied."
-from
"Friendly Neighborhood" by Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty
in Free to Be ... A Family, edited by Marlo Thomas.
The
"friendly neighborhood" that Sam and his sister discover in
the song is a network of support and positive new possibilities for
enriching relationships in the stepfamilies that are created when their
parents remarry. Although their adjustment to the changes is not easy
or painless, they come to appreciate and feel a sense of belonging in
their new family systems. As with many life changes to which children
and their caregivers must adapt, the process of creating a stepfamily
is one that poses significant challenges, yet offers many rewards.
Adjusting
to Change
It
is not an overstatement to say that each family situation is unique,
and that there are no general rules or guidelines that will guarantee
positive outcomes in parenting, especially when helping children cope
with change. We know that even positive changes are stressful for both
children and adults, and the stress becomes even greater when ambivalent
or negative emotions are generated. We also know that there is a tendency
to underestimate the amount of time it will take to adjust to change,
that some of us are uncomfortable with strong negative emotions and
may deny or minimize them, and that it is unusual for a parent to wish
to deliberately cause distress to a child. All of these factors can
interfere with realistic and objective expectations of the short and
long-term issues involved in creating stepfamilies, particularly phases
of adjustment when the "blending" feels more like "chopping"
or "tossing." Anticipating that there may well be difficulties
in the formation of a new family system, and that new relationships
can be expected to have problems that will take time and considerable
patience to resolve, can help parents and stepparents to maintain their
sense of humor and perspective during the process.
There
is an accumulating body of anecdotal and research data on stepfamilies
that can be useful in anticipating or, hopefully, avoiding some of the
common problems that arise. For example, stepparents are advised not
to expect to love their stepchild right away, or to expect love in return.
Instead, focus on building friendship, based on mutual appreciation
and respect. Anticipate that the development of a trusting, rewarding
relationship is likely to take time, and will be tested often along
the way. Although the stepparent will be co-parenting the family in
terms of upholding family rules and providing nurturance and discipline,
he or she should not expect to psychologically replace the missing parent.
The stepparent should particularly avoid making negative statements
about this parent in the presence of the child, and remain sensitive
to issues of divided loyalty that often exist for stepchildren. Stepparents
may need to draw on reserves of patience and tolerance to learn to understand
their stepchild's apparently obnoxious or disrespectful behavior patterns
before rushing in to intervene or correct them (and in the process escalating
tensions by implying or stating a negative opinion of the parenting
ability of their new partner). Being able to take the child's perspective
into account will help, as will having a genuine interest in getting
to know the familiar child and family routines before insisting on changing
either.
Building
New Relationships
Although
often easier said than done, clear and direct communication is an invaluable
tool for building and maintaining relationships in a stepfamily. Depending
on the communication patterns that existed in the child's original family,
and the extent to which the child was exposed to or involved in parental
conflicts, the child may have unstated expectations for his or her role
in the new family. It is not uncommon for children to assume a divisive
role in the new adult partnership, particularly if they are actively
grieving the loss of the pre-existing family constellation, or if they
feel to blame for the breakup of an earlier parental relationship. Underlying
issues can range from efforts to reunite original parents to resentment
at having to share the time, attention, and affection of the single
parent with whom they have lived. It is important to keep in mind that
children are often expressing their feelings of powerlessness in situations
by engaging in behavior that is aggressive or disrespectful. The adults
in the new partnership can support each other in working through any
feelings of guilt or resentment they might be feeling regarding the
emotional reactions and behaviors of the children. Family meetings to
air grievances before they escalate into power struggles, and to provide
children with age appropriate roles in blended family decision making,
can help deescalate emotional tensions and communicate a shared sense
of purpose and commitment to the new family constellation.
It
is not only stepparent-stepchild relationships that can be problematic;
additional issues of boundaries, belongingness, and interesting chemistry
are raised in step-sibling relationships. For some children, the addition
of new brothers or sisters is positive and welcomed; others will have
a harder time coping with this change,and may even have an active dislike
of their step-siblings. Perceptions of parental favoritism can be heightened,
and the not uncommon clashing of family traditions, such as holiday
rituals, can create problems when one or both sets of children are unhappy
with the loss of the familiar. To help bridge these potential trouble
spots,parents can encourage children to find the skills and strengths
of their new siblings and to explore areas of mutual interest. Adult
modeling of acceptance, interest, and respect for the step-siblings
is helpful, as is allowing space for the children to work out their
differences without parental interference. Each child in a blended family
will also benefit from provision of some physical space that is theirs
alone. This also is helpful to the "visiting child" who is
not a full time member of the new household. Recognition of the issues
of "belongingness" and displacement that often arise when
a new baby enters the blended household is also important to helping
the step-child cope with this change. Extra time, attention, and reassurance
from each adult may be necessary during the transition.
Consider
Developmental Needs
Understanding
and taking into account the developmental levels and needs of the children
entering the stepfamily can provide insight in to some of the particularly
sensitive issues. For example, the relationship between an adolescent
and a new stepparent will generate a special need to be aware of and
respect physical and emotional boundaries. Step-parents of teenagers
are well advised to keep in mind how difficult it will be to balance
the adolescent's developmentally appropriate need to emancipate and
even push away from parental involvement, with the family need for a
new relationship to develop and strengthen with the stepparent. It can
be very helpful for the new stepparent of an adolescent to have a reference
group of other parents and step-parents with whom to discuss parenting
problems, obtain support, and learn to take rebellion of the teenager
in stride. Of benefit to adults in blended families with children of
all ages are the available support networks for stepfamilies, including
resources such as parent groups and membership in the Stepfamily Association
of America.
It
also helps for the parent and stepparent to have a clear appreciation
of the temperaments and coping skills of the children in the stepfamily.
Some children are temperamentally better equipped than others to handle
transitions, and become less emotionally aroused and distressed by expected
or unexpected frustrations or disappointments. Other children are more
emotionally sensitive or reactive, and require extra time and more careful
preparation to handle frustration or change. These children can be expected
to take a longer time to settle in and adapt to the new relationships
and routines in a stepfamily. However, even the most resilient child
can feel overwhelmed at times and react in emotionally charged ways.
This should not be viewed as a failure of the child or of the stepparent
relationship, but as a temporary overload of the delicate emotional
circuitry that is exposed and tested during the process of creating
a new family system.
Deb
Clemmensen is a supervisor of the Outpatient Department at Washburn
Child Guidance Center in Minneapolis, MN. She is a licensed psychologist
and licensed school psychologist. In addition to therapy and assessments,
she frequently does training and public speaking on child and family
issues.
by
Bob Brancale
"You don't know how it feels." That's the phrase I remember
hearing most often when I talked with parents from step/blended families.
Now, I find myself using the same words to describe my own experiences
as a stepfather.
I met
my wife, Debbie, in 1980. Her ex-husband had left her "to find
himself" when she told him she was pregnant with their third child.
I referred Deb to a family counselor in June and saw her the following
September. We began dating the next summer. We were married in August
of 1985. I adopted the girls on October 30, 1986, when Jenny was 10,
Jessica was 6, and Janelle was 4. We celebrate our adoption day every
year.
When
we first began dating, I felt very awkward and confused. Here I was,
coordinator of an ECFE program, masters degree in early childhood, teacher
of young children, facilitator of parenting groups, with absolutely
no experience as a parent dating a mother of three young children. Talk
about a credibility gap!
I didn't
know my role when to jump in or when to fall back. My first attempt
at guiding behavior (discipline) was a bust. Jessica, a 2 year old,
was agitating her infant sister, Janelle. When I stepped in to stop
the fray, Jess pointed to the front door and delivered her first three
word sentence: "You go home!" I stayed, which is what you
have to do if you are committed to your relationship. Statistics show
that 50% of first marriages fail, while nearly 70% of second marriages
end in divorce. Children are the main factor in the breakup of second
marriages. I understand why, and you do, too, if you have ever experienced
the feelings. I felt like I was auditioning for a job/role that I really
wanted. I was wowed by the leading lady and she thought I was right
for the part. But the rest of the cast and crew didn't try to hide their
doubts and suspicions about my character and skills. The kids were wary
and uncomfortable, the neighbors were cold and distant. Her mother thought
I was "too mod." Even my own family members were cautious
and said things like, "Wow, three kids. That's quite a handful."
A source
of encouragement was my ECFE colleagues. But even that source was sometimes
questionable. They had worked with and supported Deb and the girls for
over two years.From their perspective, they wondered if she was doing
the right thing. In fact, when we were exchanging vows on our wedding
day and Deb said, "I want to live with you just the way you are,"
my colleagues laughed out loud. To which my bride quickly responded:
"No, for real." We have it on video.
The
weirdest sensation for me was the intense, contradictory feelings. I
found myself truly caring about and for the kids, and yet at the same
time resenting them when they didn't appreciate my sacrifices and generosity.
I would take the family to dinner, a picnic, a movie, or Valley Fair,
and require some sort of acknowledgment from them. I'm sure that most
biological parents don't expect the recognition,but nearly every stepparent
does. I also remember how competitive I felt toward the biological dad,
and how quickly those feelings could escalate to resentment, anger,and
rage. When this "Disneyland Daddy" stopped paying child support
and began dropping off bicycles, downhill skis, and $25.00 tights, I
was angry. When he failed to pay his share of the taxes (Deb filed jointly
to lessen his tax burden) and the Feds stepped into our lives, my anger
became rage. The IRS put a lien on my wife's home and her car and drained
her checking and savings accounts and the children's saving accounts.
The feelings of frustration, lack of control, and helplessness were
incredible. Our family therapist reminded me that Deb and the girls
needed my emotional support more than financial support.
When
my oldest daughter celebrated her thirteenth birthday and received a
dozen roses without a card, she automatically assumed they were from
Grandma. Deb and I knew otherwise. When Grandma said they weren't from
her, Jen asked me to call the florist. I did and was told the giver
wanted to remain anonymous. I held Jenny for 20 minutes as she wept.
She realized they were from her biological dad.
There
have been as many positive feelings and experiences as negative. My
most profound joyful experiences revolved around the actual adoption
process. During the first year of marriage, I spent an inordinate amount
of energy worrying that something would happen to Deb, and I would lose
my entire family. Biological dad had gone underground to avoid child
support and life was much calmer. When he finally resurfaced, he offered
to "give" us the children if we forgave him the child support
debt. I told his attorney that I would not "buy the children,"
and that the issues of child support and parental rights were separate.
We settled out of court. He paid half of what he owed to avoid time
in the workhouse. One week later, dad signed away his parental rights
no phone call, letter, visit, or explanation to the kids. Just exit,
stage left. To this day, my children are bewildered and angry. I am
grateful that I have been so blessed by his loss, and still cannot believe
anyone could walk away from such wonderful children. In the judge's
chambers on the day I adopted the girls, I experienced the ultimate
natural high. When the judge made it official, 10 year old Jenny walked
over to me, gave me a giant hug, and whispered into my ear: "Congratulations,Dad."
We all experienced an awkward transition for the next couple of months
as the kids slowly got used to calling me dad. The kids have since told
me that it wasn't until I adopted them that they finally believed I
wasn't going to leave.
Writing
this brief article has been an emotional journey for me. I have conjured
up so many feelings in my recollections of the past nine years. Being
a stepdad was the most difficult task I have yet to experience and being
an adoptive dad has been the most satisfying. I have been blessed. But
I will always have an empathetic heart and a listening ear for members
of step/blended families. Because, unless you've been there, "You
don't know how it feels."
Bob
Brancale is a teacher in the Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE)
Program in Minneapolis.
by
Kristen Wheeler
Robbie's mom and dad are divorced. Sarah's parents are divorced and
both have remarried. Maggie lives with her father and grandparents.
Peter's mom lives with her "significant other." Who do you
invite to the parent teacher conference? Who gets the daily notes? The
monthly newsletter? Who is listed on the enrollment paperwork? Just
who is authorized to pick up the children?
It's
a concern I hear over and over again. What is the definition of "family"
and "parent?" How do early childhood professionals accommodate
both traditional and nontraditional family models? As a former program
director and a single divorced mother, this is a topic very close to
my heart! As professionals working with young children and their families,
I believe we need to examine the philosophy, policies, and procedures
we use in dealing with staff parent communication issues. The topic
is very broad, but let me tell you how I have handled this issue in
the context of divorced and blended families.
As
a program director, I looked to the licensing rules and regulations
for guidelines. I found that the Minnesota Rule 3 for centers and Rule
2 for day care homes are very clear concerning the information the program
is obligated to provide to parents. As for the information that parents
are to give to the provider, in the section on children's records it
states that the program needs the following:
- The
name, address, and telephone number of the child's parent.
- Instructions
on how the parent can be reached when the child is attending the program.
- The
names and telephone numbers of any persons authorized to take the
child from the program.
Nowhere
does either rule attempt to define who a parent is. Neither does it
address the issue of who needs to be included in the communication network.
With this in mind, I turned to custody agreements and arrangements as
well as court ordered restraining orders to more clearly define these
issues. I found that custody agreements range from very vague to very
specific. Those that spelled out who had physical custody made it easy
to determine who could pick up the child. They did not, however, help
with the issue of who should receive information from program staff.
Restraining orders sometimes clarified these issues. Based on all these
factors, our center and many more that I know about adopted the policy
that if there was a custody agreement or restraining order in place,
a copy of it must be in the child's program file. The staff were told
who was the legal guardian and who was authorized to pickup the children.
With
that policy in place, I then looked at the communication network. Who
should be included? As a parent going through a divorce, I empathized
with all the situations that our parents found themselves in. As a program
director, I empathized with the staff. Above all else, our first concern
was always for the best interests of the children in our care.
Each
child's living situation was unique and had to be considered. When looking
only at what was in the best interest of the children, wouldn't it be
wise to include in the communication network all the adults who were
important to the child? I believed so. With this in mind, our center
staff thought about all the ways we communicated with the significant
adults in each child's life and made some changes. That meant that at
parent teacher conferences we sometimes had grandparents in attendance;
sometimes there were two sets of parents; and sometimes there was a
parent and a significant other. The number of possibilities were virtually
endless, but always interesting. When writing daily notes,we often photocopied
them for the parent that was not picking up the child that day. When
running off newsletters, we ended up mailing an extra dozen to all of
the pertinent adults. In addition, we looked at our enrollment paperwork
and discovered that one line was designated "mother" and one
"father." This did not fit our new model, so the forms were
modified. The new forms listed "guardian" and included spaces
for up to three additional adults. Each space had room to indicate the
relationship to the child. While the changes were awkward in the beginning,
they proven to be invaluable to the staff and respectful of our parents.
Once
the modifications got started: the process didn't seem to stop. In addition
to communication, our staff looked at issues like traditional celebrations
(Mothers Day and Fathers Day), holidays, and our curriculum as a whole.
We wanted to be more conscientious and inclusive. It was amazing what
was found and the changes that were made.
Because
you work with young children and their families, you find yourself in
the same situation. How are you responding? I urge you to look at the
living situations of the children in your care and respond with empathy.
Yes, it is difficult in the beginning and seems endless and overwhelming.
But the rewards you get from the children and families you serve are
immeasurable.
Kristen
Wheeler is a Master Teacher at the Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association.
The
statutory system in Minnesota directs the courts to determine custody
awards according to the best interests of the child. The process of
determining what is in the best interests of the child is guided by
13 elements prescribed by statute. These elements include:
- The
wishes of the child's parent or parents regarding custody.
- The
reasonable preference of the child, if the court finds the child to
be of sufficient age to express a preference.
- The
child's primary caretaker.
- The
intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child.
- The
interaction and interrelationship between each parent and the child.
- The
child's adjustment to home, school, and community.
- The
length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment
and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
- The
permanence as a family unit of the existing or proposed custodial
home.
- The
mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
- The
capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection,
and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the
child's culture and religion or creed, if any.
- The
child's cultural background.
- The
effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic
abuse that has occurred between the parents.
- Except
where there has been a finding of domestic abuse, the disposition
of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact
by the other parent with the child.
Legal
custody refers to the right to determine a child's upbringing including
education, health care, and religious training all of which involve
making major decisions that affect a child's life. Physical custody
refers to the routine daily care and control and residence of a child.
As is true with joint legal custody, joint physical custody means that
the routine daily care, control, and residence of the child is structured
between the parties.
The
Stepfamily Association of America (SAA) is a national organization dedicated
to providing education and support to adults and children living in
stepfamilies. We are a special population with unique concerns and needs.
SAA, a nonprofit organization, exists to provide resources to help meet
those needs. Did you know that 1,300 new stepfamilies are formed every
day in the U.S., and that 1 in every 4 children are stepchildren? Those
of us living in stepfamilies are not alone. The Twin Cities Chapter
of the association (known as TCS, or "Twin Cities Stepfamilies")
was formed in 1990 so that we can meet and learn together.
Twin
Cities Stepfamilies (TCS) Credo:
We
value stepfamilies. We are not unusual, weird, or strange. We are not
the result of failed marriages. We are decent, respectable, intelligent,
honest, capable people working together to build strong relationships
in strong families.
Everyone
is welcome at our meetings. We are nonsectarian; we have no ax to grind.
Our mission is to enhance the probability of remarriage/stepfamily success
through education, support, and sharing.
We
are a self-help organization. That means that everyone's contribution
is valuable. Everyone has something from his or her experience that
can help someone else. We are not "experts" with all the answers.
We are friends learning from each other through mutual support.
Please
call 612-723-8986 for recorded program information and to request a
membership application to Twin Cities Stepfamilies, a chapter of the
Stepfamily Association of America, Inc.
Children
Youth and Family Consortium Electronic Clearinghouse.
Permission is granted to create and distribute copies of this document
for noncommercial purposes provided that the author and CYFCEC receive
acknowledgment and this notice is included. Phone (612) 626-1212 EMAIL:
cyfcec@maroon.tc.umn.edu
