Remarriage and Stepfamily Life PDF

Chapter 7 Remarriage and Stepfamily Life K ay Pasley Chelsea Garneau B ecause divorce remains common and individuals maintain interest in mar- riage, remarriage and stepfamilies continue to be part of American fam- ily life....

Chapter 7 Remarriage and Stepfamily Life K ay Pasley Chelsea Garneau B ecause divorce remains common and individuals maintain interest in mar- riage, remarriage and stepfamilies continue to be part of American fam- ily life. Estimates show that between 40 and 50% of first-­married couples ultimately divorce (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Cherlin, 2010; Teachman & Tedrow, 2008), and these divorced individuals typically go on to remarry or repartner. When those remarriages include children from a prior union, step- families are formed. Also, an increasing number of cohabiting couples dissolve their relationships and go on to either legally marry or form a repartnership (Teachman, 2008; Teachman & Tedrow, 2008). In many cases, these couples also include children from prior unions, so scholars acknowledge them as stepfamilies as well (Pasley & Lee, 2010; Sweeney, 2010). Our best estimates suggest that about 9% of married couples and 12% of cohabiting couples have a stepchild residing in the household (Kreider, 2008; Teachman & Tedrow, 2008). Importantly, these estimates are based on the census definition of children being younger than 18 years and residing in the household. Excluded from these estimates are (1) children who reside with a resident single parent (usually the mother), and whose nonresident parent (usually the father) has remarried or repartnered; (2) children who are 18 years and older and continue to reside at home; and (3) children who reside with same-sex couples, where one adult is their biological parent and the other serves a stepparent role (Pasley & Lee, 2010). Although divorce and dissolution of other relationships are common, we know that most individuals continue to couple and recouple, and that chil- dren often are involved in these relationship transitions. Whether the adults We dedicate this chapter to the memory of Drs. Emily and John Visher, pioneers in bringing stepfamilies to the attention of clinicians and advocating for research-­informed therapy. 149 150 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES are legally married or not, the child experiences these transitions as paren- tal divorce and remarriage. Of concern to those interested in prevention and intervention, a good deal of research shows that poor child outcomes are asso- ciated with changes in family structure (Bulanda & Manning, 2008) and the number of accompanying transitions (e.g., changing homes, schools, friend- ship groups; Amato, 2010). Our purpose here is to review briefly the extant literature on remarriage and stepfamily life to address the common life challenges these families face early on. We also describe the processes that are important for both individ- ual and family adjustment and well-being. Although much has been written from a deficit perspective, our focus is on inherent strategies and strengths developed in these complicated families, including those formed through both marriage and cohabitation. We end with a discussion of the relevance of this research for those involved in psychoeducation and clinical work. Of note, we include citations as example throughout the chapter; however, we have made no attempt to be inclusive. Who Remarries and Forms Stepfamilies? Kreider (2005) reported that 30.2% of all marriages in 2001 were remarriages for at least one member of the couple, which is a significant reduction from earlier estimates of 45%. This reduction likely reflects the overall decrease in marriage and the concomitant increase in cohabitation (Cherlin, 2010). Our best estimates suggest that about 65% of remarriages form stepfamilies, with either stepfather-only or stepfather–­stepmother families being the most com- mon; stepmother-only families remain least common (Kreider, 2008). Other data from an urban cohort showed that almost 60% of unmarried couples had at least one child from a prior union, constituting nonlegal stepfamilies (Carlson & Furstenberg, 2006). Thus, remarriages or repartnerships remain common, although overall we see a decrease in remarriages and an increase in repartnerships (Cherlin, 2010). Regarding stability, remarriages end slightly more frequently than do first marriages, a consistent finding over time (Coleman & Ganong, 1990; Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; Sweeney, 2010). What has changed is that the median amount of time from first marriage to divorce and remarriage to divorce is now about 8 years (Kreider, 2005). Earlier estimates were 7.5 years from first marriage to divorce and 4.5 years from remarriage to divorce (Kreider, 2005). This suggests similar stability now among those who marry for the first time and those who remarry. Least stable are cohabiting unions following divorce, many of which include children, as these repartnerships dissolve more frequently than do actual remarriages (Poortman & Lyngstad, 2007; Xu, Hudspeth, & Bartkowski, 2006). Studies of the demographic characteristics of those who remarry or repartner typically focus on the presence and number of children, gender,  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 151 prior marital status, age, race, level of education, and prior experience with cohabitation. Specifically, having children from a prior marriage or union reduces the likelihood of remarriage for women but increases the likelihood for men (e.g., Brown, Lee, & Bulanda, 2006). Furthermore, women with chil- dren tend to marry men who also have children, thereby forming complex stepfamilies (i.e., his and her family combination; Goldscheider & Sassler, 2006). Single men who marry divorced women do so more frequently when these women are not parents (Golscheider, Kaufman, & Sassler, 2009), and men with nonresident children are more likely to cohabit than to marry or remarry (Stewart, Manning, & Smock, 2003). Choosing to remarry is a more common phenomenon among younger, white women with lower levels of education (Kreider, 2005), many of whom have prior experience with cohabitation (Xu et al., 2006). Repartnering is more common among African American women with lower levels of educa- tion (Kreider, 2005). Unlike women, men with higher levels of education are more likely to remarry or repartner, and the presence of children from a prior union does not diminish this probability (Brown et al., 2006). What the Literature Reveals The Couple Relationship Although there is a good deal written about changes in family structure and some of the demographic characteristics associated with these changes, much less in known about the nature of the relationships formed (van Eeden- ­Moorefield & Pasley, 2008). There is some research showing that those who remarry have better physical and emotional health than those who are sin- gle (Hughes & Waite, 2009). Also, evidence suggest that those who remarry expect these relationships to operate like first marriages, and that such expec- tations are associated with adjustment difficulties (Bray & Kelly, 1998). How- ever, little is known about how couples go about creating positive relation- ships (Coleman et al., 2000). Other evidence suggests that, for many, cohabitation (often more than one such partnership) is the first step toward remarriage (Ganong & Coleman, 2004), and this can delay remarriage (Xu et al., 2006). Stewart and associates (2003) found that cohabitation is preferred to remarriage for men, a finding that may be related to other research showing that men are slower to make a commitment to relationships in general (see Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2006). The Role of Conflict Pasley and Lee (2010) argue that remarriages and stepfamilies are likely to experience more conflict and greater challenges in adjusting to family life than are first-­marriage couples. They noted that this is likely due to the increased 152 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES complexity of relationships within the newly formed family, the brevity of shared history among members, and the existence of “interested outsiders” (e.g., former spouses and nonresident parents). Frequent conflict situations may be one explanation for reports of lower levels of cohesion (Bray & Kelly, 1998), more equal power in decision making between spouses (Ganong, Coleman, & Hans, 2006), and endorsement of greater autonomy regarding finances and children (Allen, Baucom, Burnett, Epstein, & Rankin-­Esquer, 2001). Examples of conflict situations include dealing with nonresident par- ents, which can spillover to mother–child and stepfather–­stepchild conflict (Dunn, Cheng, O’Connor, & Bridges, 2004); working out issues of parent- ing/stepparenting (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Shelton, Walters, & Harold, 2008), especially in stepfamilies with stepdaughters (Feinberg, Kan, & Heth- erington, 2007); and setting rules and determining boundaries early on (Afifi, 2008). Beyond these realities, other evidence shows that the quality of the stepparent–­stepchild relationships is more predictive of marital adjustment and outcomes than is the quality of the marriage itself, which does not hold true for first marriages. Importantly, the stepparent–­stepchild relationship provides fertile ground for conflict, and research shows that child-­related issues rank first as a source of marital conflict in remarriages, with finances ranking second; in first marriages, these sources also rank first and second, but the order is reversed (see Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Conflict is reflective of communication processes in families, and remar- ried couples report being both less positive and less negative in communica- tion compared with reports from first marriages/couples (Halford, Nicholson, & Sanders, 2007). Also, research shows that those in stepfamilies more fre- quently use avoidance strategies (e.g., withdrawal) than do members of first- ­marriage families in dealing with conflict, and such strategies are linked with poorer adjustment (Halford et al., 2007). Furthermore, use of avoidance strat- egies is common among adolescents and young adults in stepfamilies (Golish & Caughlin, 2002). Stepfathers and stepchildren engage more frequently con- flict than do mothers and children, and when children are involved in step- family arguments, they commonly side with their mothers (Dunn, O’Connor, & Cheng, 2005). Greater success in stepfamilies has been attributed to open communication and flexibility (Golish, 2003). Marital Quality Both conflict and cohesion are linked with marital quality in general. Thus, it follows that those in stepfamilies would report lower martial quality. How- ever, there is contradictory evidence about marital quality in remarriages, with some studies suggesting no difference between that in first marriages and in remarriages, and others suggesting that remarriages have lower qual- ity (Coleman et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010). Certain factors are linked with lower marital adjustment and satisfaction: complex stepfamilies (his and hers;  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 153 Hobart, 1991), stepfather-only rather than stepmother-only (Kurdek, 1991), greater financial hardship (Higginbotham & Felix, 2009) poorer spousal communication skills, and older children (Beaudry, Boisvert, Simard, Parent, & Blais, 2004). Marital Stability Findings regarding the link between relationship quality and stability make intuitive sense: Poorer relationship quality is associated with more instabil- ity (Sweeney, 2010)—a finding that also holds for first marriages (Amato, 2010). Additional correlates of relationship instability and later redivorce include less perceived fairness and more relationship conflict, findings that varied by family complexity. For example, in a study using longitudinal data, perceived fairness predicted later marital quality for couples in stepfamilies and explained almost twice the variance in relationship stability over time compared with those in remarriages without children (van Eeden-­Moorefield & Pasley, 2008). Taken together, the extant literature suggests that the presence of children from a prior union influences the nature of the new marital relationship. As noted, this is a consistent finding over time (Coleman & Ganong, 1990; Cole- man et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010). Children potentially complicate commu- nication through increased conflict, less effective problem solving, and more financial strain. Adding new members to any social system disrupts existing patterns of interaction, and much of literature suggests that the nature of the stepparent–­stepchild relationship is the strongest predictor of both the quality and the stability of the new family (Coleman et al., 2000). Taking on the Role of Stepparent Without reservation, ample evidence shows that stepparenting is more dif- ficult than parenting one’s own child (see Pasley & Moorefield, 2004, for a summary). Scholars agree that much of this difficulty is the result of greater conflict and ambiguity associated with the stepparent role (Ganong & Cole- man, 2004; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Also, more ambiguity is associated with poorer stepfamily adjustment (Coleman et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010), more complicated relationships across multiple households, and when unmar- ried parents cohabit (Brown & Manning, 2009; Stewart, 2005). Influential Factors Several factors influence stepparenting, including sex of stepparent–­stepchild and residence of stepchild, support for adopting the stepparent role, disen- gagement behaviors, birth of a common child, and marital status of parents. For example, recent research shows that same-sex stepparents and stepchil- dren (e.g., stepfather and stepson) residing together facilitate the development 154 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES of effective stepparenting behaviors (Schmeeckle, 2007). Others show that when there is little spousal support for adopting a stepparenting role (Gosselin & David, 2007), or when the stepparent remains disengaged from the parent- ing process over time (Fisher, Leve, O’Leary, & Leve, 2003), developing effec- tive stepparenting is less possible. Having a common child does not diminish the stepparent–­stepchild involvement (Stewart, 2005), although the quality of parenting behaviors in married stepfamilies is higher than that of cohabiting stepfamilies (Berger, Carlson, Bzostek, & Osborne, 2008). Stepfathering We know more about the experience of stepfathers in general, because much of the research has focused on them: They are the most common resident step- parent (Kreider, 2008), even when they are also fathers to children residing elsewhere. Research shows that stepfathers have greater latitude than step- mothers in adopting parental behaviors (Coleman et al., 2000; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). The quality of this involvement and parenting does not differ dramatically from that of a biological father (Adamsons, O’Brien, & Pasley, 2007), although stepfathers engage in fewer monitoring behaviors (Fisher et al., 2003). Also, recent findings from a large study of at-risk families (Berger et al., 2008) showed that relationship status makes a difference, such that cohabiting fathers and stepfathers exhibited poorer parenting than did mar- ried fathers and stepfathers. Stepfathers were perceived as less trustworthy but, compared with fathers, were more engaged in cooperative parenting. Other research has identified a variety of factors influencing stepfather involvement with stepchildren. Specifically, when a stepfather reports lower marital quality and fewer concerns over the adjustment of the stepchild, his involvement is less frequent (Adamsons et al., 2007; Flouri, Buchanan, & Bream, 2002). Also, the nature of his parenting of stepchildren is influenced by his involvement with the nonresident father (MacDonald & DeMaris, 2002), where alliance building facilitate greater involvement. His involvement is also affected by the age and sex of the stepchild, such that when stepchil- dren are older and female, involvement is diminished. This may be because conflict between stepparents and stepdaughters is more intense than that with stepsons (Bray & Kelly, 1998), and these relationships are less close over time (Falci, 2006). Interestingly, stepchildren expect stepfathers to be less involved and secondary to the mother (Moore & Cartwright, 2005), and some of the conflict may result when this expectation is not met. Some parents’ preference to control decisions about their children (Cole- man, Fine, Ganong, Downs, & Pauk, 2001) can serve as another source of conflict between stepparent and parent that spills over into the stepparent–­ stepchild relationship. Interestingly, there is some evidence that stepparenting is perceived by all members of the family as positive when stepparents, par- ents, and stepchildren can find and share common ground, or what Papernow  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 155 (1996) called “thickening the middle ground” (see also Marsiglio, 2004; Rob- ertson, 2008). Nonresident Stepfathers Mothers are least likely to be nonresident parents (Kreider, 2008); however, nonresident stepfathers remain understudied (Coleman et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010). We know that nonresident mothers typically have more contact with children than do nonresident fathers (Gunnoe & Hetherington, 2004; Stew- art, 1999). If the nonresident mother is repartnered, this nonresident stepfa- ther has more opportunity to influence the newly formed stepfamily in which the child resides. As expected with the maturation of children, the level of con- tact between nonresident parents decreases more for children in stepfamilies, and reduced conflict between parents is linked to the quick repartnering of a nonresident parent, especially the father (Amato, Meyers, & Emery, 2009). Stepmothers Given the gendered expectations that women as stepmothers assume more involvement in parenting, they are crippled by negative stereotypes (Coleman, Troilo, & Jamison, 2008). Thus, stepmothering is more complicated for both resident and nonresident stepmothers, although little is known about these women. Resident stepmothers report slightly higher levels of conflict with their spouses regarding parenting compared with biological mothers in first- ­marriage families (Feinberg et al., 2007). Some findings show that about 67% of adolescents residing with stepmothers report feeling close to them (King, 2007), although the results are mixed about the effects of stepmothering on children (Coleman et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010). Nonresident Stepmothers Most findings are from qualitative studies and offer limited insight into the roles these women play. For example, Weaver and Coleman (2005) identified four roles: adult friend, supporter of father, liaison between father and mother, and outsider (remained uninvolved). A similar study (Henry & McCue, 2009) showed that when stepmothers were reluctant to take on the liaison role, higher marital conflict was reported between them and their spouses, the fathers of their stepchildren. The inability to take on an active role in the stepfamily was linked with reports of nonresident stepmothers having more depressed mood and feeling more anxious and stressed (Henry & McCue, 2009; Johnson et al., 2008). Overall, the relationship between stepparents and nonresident parents remains understudied (Coleman et al., 2000; Sweeney, 2010). Past recom- mendations from scholars often emphasized the value of building positive 156 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES relationships between these adults (Clapp, 2000). Research shows that involv- ing the nonresident father and building parenting alliances between fathers and stepfathers is linked with higher quality stepfathering (King, 2007; Mar- siglio & Hinojosa, 2007). Other research shows that the quality of parent- ing in stepfamilies is influenced by the level and nature of involvement of the nonresident father (MacDonald & DeMaris, 2002). Because many fathers maintain frequent contact with their children following divorce and relation- ship dissolution (Amato et al., 2009), their repartnering, especially when done quickly, is associated with a decrease in involvement (Ahrons, 2007; Juby, Bil- lette, Laplante, & Le Bourdais, 2007). Children’s Experiences in Stepfamilies Much of the research on stepfamilies has focused on children’s experiences and is summarized in several comprehensive review articles (see Coleman & Ganong, 1990; Coleman et al., 2000; Pasley & Moorefield, 2004; Sweeney, 2010), as well as two meta-­analyses (Amato, 1994; Jeynes, 2006). Primar- ily the research addresses two outcomes: academic achievement and behavior problems (both externalizing and internalizing). Overall, the results show that children in stepfamilies fare worse than those in intact first-­marriage fami- lies, but similar to or better than children in single-­parent households. Such differences are typically noted by small effect sizes and are of little practical importance. However, when meaningful differences are noted, more internal- izing (e.g., depression) is common in children in stepfamilies compared with those with a single mother, although health-­related and some other behaviors were better in children in stepfamilies (e.g., Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2007; Sweeney, Wang, & Videon, 2009). Comparisons between children in married and cohabiting stepfamilies show mixed results (Sweeney, 2010). Specific to children’s academic achievement, results show a similar pat- tern of achievement among stepchildren and children with a single parent, and worse performance compared with children in first-­marriage families. Those in cohabiting stepfamilies fared worst of all groups (Heard, 2007; Tillman, 2008). More important than family structure in explaining differences in aca- demic achievement were the number and recency of family transitions (e.g., changing parental figures, moving to another residence, changing schools; Jeynes, 2006; Tillman, 2008). Earlier research on children’s behavior problems and the effects of living in a stepfamily revealed that the children were at greater risk for experienc- ing higher levels of externalizing problems (Coleman et al., 2000). However, recent finding show reductions in the level of externalizing problems (Col- lishaw, Goodman, Pickles, & Maughan, 2007), although children in step- mother families and those in complex stepfamilies (with half-­siblings and or stepsiblings) are at greatest risk (Tillman, 2008) for these behaviors. As noted, research shows that “cumulative family instability” (Sweeney, 2010, p. 674) is linked with behavior problems and early sexual involvement, early  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 157 childbearing, and poorer academic outcomes (e.g., Bulanda & Manning, 2008; Fomby & Cherlin, 2007; Wu & Thomson, 2001); that is, those experi- encing more transitions and other indicators of instability (e.g., low resources, homelessness) have the most problems. Some evidence shows that positive stepparenting and being male (girls are at 2.5 times greater risk) can serve to buffer some of these negative out- comes (Hoffman, 2006; Rodgers & Rose, 2002; Willetts & Maroules, 2005). Research also shows that a high-­quality relationship with both resident stepfa- thers and nonresident fathers is associated with better youth outcomes (King, 2006). The quality of the relationship with the stepparent is most influential and has the greatest effect when the stepfamily members have been together longer and the child’s relationship with his or her mother is also of high qual- ity (Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Regarding internalizing behavior problems, results from studies are mixed. Although earlier studies often showed that children in stepfamilies experience more internalizing problems than do children in other family structures (Coleman et al., 2000), more recent research shows that this nega- tive outcome increases with more transitions, and more frequent transitions; greater sibling conflict and perception of unequal treatment; being in a stepfa- ther versus stepmother family; and experiencing negative stepparenting (Saint- ­Jacques et al., 2006; Sweeney, 2007; Yuan, 2009). Some of these negative outcomes may be explained by growing evidence that children in stepfamilies, who are exposed to and engage in higher lev- els of conflict with parents, stepparents, siblings, and stepsiblings, fare more poorly than those in families where conflict is controlled (Greeff & Du Toit, 2009; Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Unlike children in first-­marriage families in which threat and self-blame mediate the effects of parental conflict on child outcomes, children in stepfamilies are more affected by mother–­stepfather conflict that results in rejecting and hostile parenting and stepparenting (Shel- ton et al., 2008). Equating Adjustment with the Experience of Moving to a Foreign Country We draw from Pasley and Lee (2010) and liken the experience of adjusting to stepfamily life to moving to a foreign country; that is, having lived in a home country for some time (first family), knowledge of what is expected and how to follow rules is ingrained. There are specific roles to be filled and rules to guide actions and interactions with others on a daily basis. Becoming a mem- ber of a new stepfamily is similar to taking up residence in a new country, where people speak a different language, or the nuances of a shared language have different meanings, and a new set of rules, roles, laws, and customs must be learned. Even something as simple as food preference, scheduled meal- times, and mealtime etiquette may be different. Commonly, breaking rules 158 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES or showing insensitivity to customs out of ignorance can be problematic as newcomers attempt to thrive in the new environment. Depending on the country and the prior preparations, the transition can be more or less challenging. For example, families moving from the United States to Canada might be expected to experience fewer challenges than fami- lies moving from the United States to China. Similarly, stepfamilies whose members have greater divides in family cultures would be expected to struggle more; however, we suggest that when stepfamilies are more meticulous and intentional about their preparation for and navigation of the transition and have strong communication and problem-­solving skills, much of the struggle can be ameliorated. Commonly, stepfamily members have unrealistic expectations regarding how their new life will be (Papernow, 2008), and the more unrealistic these expectations are, the more likely they are to experience “culture shock,” a term used to describe the disorientation, anxiety, and feelings of loss that accompany the loss of one’s customary culture and social rules (Winkleman, 1994). Members often lack knowledge about stepfamily life, expecting their experiences to be similar to those of their first-­marriage families (Visher & Visher, 1996). Misguided expectations and lack of awareness of what is “nor- mal” can be a source of conflict early on and may be perceived as a unique failure of their family rather than an expected part of the processes associated with making such huge cultural shifts. Not all members of new stepfamilies have the necessary foresight to know what to expect or how to prepare for change. Thus, information about strategies for easing the adjustment of these new stepfamilies follows. Strategies for Easing Adjustment Importance of Research-Based Knowledge From both quantitative and qualitative research on stepfamily life, it is clear that stepfamilies differ fundamentally from first-­marriage families. Scholars have compiled lists of characteristics that are unique to stepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Examples include greater structural complexity, lack of common history among family members, incongruent family life cycles among members, and development of parent–child bonds prior to spousal bonds. Because working with stepfamilies requires an understanding of these key dif- ferences, it is essential that professionals have a solid background in the extant research as their foundation, especially within a therapeutic context. If pro- fessionals apply the same guiding principles with which they work with first- ­marriage families, they are likely to increase the stress and frustration noted by those seeking assistance. In fact, in findings from a study of 267 adults in stepfamilies’ experiences in therapy, 13% reported that therapy had been unhelpful; of these, almost 74% commented that this was due to their thera- pist’s lack of knowledge and skill for treating stepfamily issues or engendering  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 159 trust and empathy (Pasley, Rhoden, Visher, & Visher, 1996). Furthermore, 73% sought therapy within the first 3 years of their marriage, when Papernow (2008) suggests harsh realities and unfulfilled fantasies and expectations are prominent. The Value of Psychoeducation We believe that psychoeducation is the best starting place for stepfamilies struggling primarily with challenges of normal transitional issues, such as exploring unrealistic or misguided expectations. A focus on normalizing the stepfamily experience, understanding the unique challenges and common themes in emerging stepfamily households, and/or having the opportunity to share these experiences with other members of stepfamilies can be beneficial for those who lack serious family problems. One of the most useful outcomes of psychoeducation is the relief that stepfamilies experience when they under- stand that their struggles are common and they are not alone. Without knowl- edge of such commonalities from the extant literature, professionals can set first-­marriage family expectations as the standard. This can result in feelings of failure when stepfamily members’ experiences do not measure up. Learning that some expectations do not fit for stepfamilies can depersonalize struggles and reduce the demoralization that many experience, giving stepfamily mem- bers a boost in self-­esteem and confidence—all requisites for moving forward to meet other challenges. Whether psychoeducation occurs within couple or family therapy ses- sions, group therapy intervention (Michaels, 2000), or as part of relationship education programs (see Adler-­Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004), the primary foci should include normalizing, addressing common parenting and steppar- enting issues, and exploring best ways to handle issues associated with “inter- ested outsiders.” We now discuss these foci and strategies for their implemen- tation. The Importance of Normalizing Normalizing stepfamily experience gives members realistic expectations to replace their first-­marriage family expectations. Exposure to how stepfami- lies develop over time is a good place to start. For example, commonly step- family members have fantasies about a quick and easy adjustment early on, thinking that such an adjustment will help them to become indistinguishable from a first-­marriage family. Resulting stress from unrealistic expectations often becomes apparent as children participate in two households and feel less accepting of a new stepparent who attempts to take charge or divert attention away from them. Understanding that these are common experiences and common feelings can ease some of the associated stress for the couple and help to reduce blame and enhance empathy for one another. Visher and Visher (1996) suggested 160 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES that genograms, an often used tool in therapy, are helpful to illustrate clearly the differences in family structure between first-time families and stepfami- lies, thus influencing stepfamily expectations. Although discussions of expec- tations are best initiated early, and well before cohabitating, Bray and Kelly (1998) have suggested that spouses who continue to discuss expectations of stepfamily life and learn to share openly their disappointments are able to strengthen their couple bond and approach their challenges as a team. As stepfamilies challenge unrealistic expectations, focus can be directed toward assisting members to understand the needs and perspective of each person. In part, understanding comes through shared experiences in which revised or newly negotiated values, rules, and cultural norms develop, or what Papernow (1996) calls the “middle ground.” When there is thin middle ground between members, making decisions requires more negotiation, resolution of differences, or even “translation” before agreement is reached. The difference between first-­marriage families and stepfamilies is the location of the thickest middle ground. In first-­marriage families, the couple likely has had time to build and deepen their relationship prior to the birth of children. In stepfami- lies, the parent–child relationship has the longest and richest shared history and, thus, thickest middle ground. Many of the common issues that stepfami- lies inherently encounter develop due to this significant difference in structure. Again, normalizing this can help members to prepare better for handling the associated issues and find creative ways to thicken the middle ground for all. Addressing Parenting and Stepparenting Some stepchildren may never like being in a stepfamily, but establishing agreed-upon ground rules is necessary, so that daily family life is more harmo- nious and less stressful for everyone. This is especially important to emphasize when working with stepfamilies with adolescents. Some problems between adolescent stepchildren and stepparents may be stepfamily issues. Other prob- lems that can be attributed to stepfamily dynamics are actually the result of common and expected adolescent developmental issues (Ganong & Coleman, 1994). For example, it is developmentally appropriate for adolescents to seek more autonomy, withdraw from their families, and even exhibit mild rebel- lious behaviors. Yet these behaviors may be viewed as pulling away from the new stepfamily and rebelling against the stepparent. Distinguishing between expected struggles in parenting adolescents and stepfamily adjustment is important and requires knowledge of both. Relationships between stepparents and stepchildren significantly impact satisfaction of all family members and may carry the heaviest burden of unre- alistic expectations. Whether coming from the parent, child, or stepparent, an expectation of instant love between stepparent and stepchild often leads to initial disappointment (Visher & Visher, 1996). When these fantasies do not materialize, the frustration and hurt can run deep, and normalizing this  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 161 experience can help members understand their experiences. In fact, they may need help letting go of their old expectations before they are able to move onto building relationships that are more realistic and make sense based on what we know about stepfamily life. Another source of stress from expectations is the extent of the discipli- narian role or limit-­setting behaviors adopted by the stepparent. These expec- tations may differ among stepfamily members. Typically stepparents’ attempts to assume some parental control are challenged by stepchildren, who are unwilling to accept the validity of their authority (Bray, 1999). These attempts are often undermined by the parent who wants to protect his or her child from undue stress. Building more middle ground between stepparents and step- children through befriending behaviors is a common recommendation before engaging in limit-­setting behaviors (Pasley, Dollahite, & Ihinger-­Tallman, 1993). Papernow (2008) argued that activities focusing on one-to-one time rather than “family” bonding time are also key, especially when these activi- ties are of interest to the stepchild rather than something the stepparent wants to share (Ganong, Coleman, Fine, & Martin, 1999). The recommendation is that befriending should begin early during courtship and prior to cohabitation or remarriage (Visher & Visher, 1996), and this opportunity can be reduced when couples move quickly to cohabitation. Others suggest the importance of befriending adolescent stepchildren, because resistance to accepting the authority of a new stepparent is common (Ganong & Coleman, 1994; Heth- erington & Kelly, 2002). However, it is clear that significant bonding between possible future stepparents and children takes a good deal of time (Ganong et al., 1999). Coupled with befriending, stepparents can assume a monitoring role (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002) and take a more active role in parenting decisions behind the scenes, so the couple presents a growing united front to the children. Pasley and associates (1993) discussed adopting a “sitter posture,” in which the stepparent “monitors or supervises the child’s behav- ior” and “directs disciplinary action to the parent” (p. 319). For example, a stepparent might be coached to say, “Your mother wants your room picked up, and I’m here to make sure her wishes are followed.” Such behaviors allow for the gradual introduction of the stepparent into the parenting process, espe- cially when limit setting is necessary and often a source of conflict. Communication about parenting issues can be an especially sensitive topic for some couples, who can benefit from practicing skills to address this respectfully and with compassion and empathy for the other’s position. Some of this sensitivity stems from the tension associated with discrepan- cies between the needs and expectations of the parent regarding appropriate parenting behaviors and the actual comfort level and skills of the stepparent (Svare, Jay, & Mason, 2004). When adults are not parents and lack signifi- cant exposure to children, they can be unaware of what to expect of chil- dren at different developmental stages. Unnecessary frustration results when 162 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES stepparenting or discipline is unsuccessful for these reasons. These stepparents may benefit from parenting classes, groups, or books on child development (Ganong, Coleman, & Weaver, 2002). Because stepparent–­stepchild relationship quality has a considerable impact on the quality of stepfamily life overall and the martial relationship specifically, it remains important to build the couple relationship (Papernow, 2008). Uncommonly, the couple relationship competes with the strength of the parent–child relationship, so couples are encouraged early on to carve out time for their relationship to thicken their middle ground and form a solid unit to better withstand the challenges of stepfamily life. Suggestions vary on how best to accomplished this, but they often include initiating a “date night” ritual in which the couple routinely sets aside a specific and regular time to spend alone. Separate time to discuss important family or other issues can also be established to focus the couple’s energy on handling difficult issues and working on problem solving. Also, because of the challenges in resolving conflict and communicating effectively, interventions with stepfamily couples that focus on effective communication skills to decrease negativity without increasing avoidance may be beneficial (Whitton, Nicholson, & Markman, 2008). Techniques (e.g., learning to approach difficult subjects with a “soft start-up”; Gottman, 1999; Papernow, 2008) can help couples in stepfamilies feel less overwhelmed by the idea of attempting to resolve conflict. Handling Multiple “Interested Outsiders” Initially stepparents report feeling like an “outsider”—an experience often associated with loneliness and isolation in the family. Parents also struggle with their experience of being an “insider,” overwhelmed by loyalty conflicts as they address the needs of their children and those of their new spouse or partner (Pasley & Lee, 2010). Early in stepfamily formation, relationship building is best done primarily within dyads, or one-on-one between members of dyads. However, as the connection between new family members grows and the middle ground thickens, building a sense of “we-ness” or stepfamily identity is important. Coaching stepfamily members to create new rituals or family traditions is an effective strategy to foster family identity (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Visher & Visher, 1996). Some rituals may begin effortlessly and stem from family members’ one-on-one time. For example, a stepparent may start by assisting the stepchild to build model cars, with the intent to learn about one another; this then becomes something they continue to do regularly. Other rituals, such as a family meetings or game nights, might be initiated. Encouraging members to think creatively and to reconsider related rules (e.g., “We always celebrate birthdays with a cake”) can assist them in being less rigid with new rituals. Creating shared rituals in a gradual manner that includes parent, chil- dren, and stepparent can help to ease the feelings associated with being in the insider/outsider position.  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 163 Part of the stress associated with being an outsider results from coparent- ing by stepparents (a symbolic outsider) and nonresident biological parent (an actual outsider to the residential household). Stepfamilies are often influenced by the “other household” to which stepchildren belong (Visher & Visher, 1996). Even stepfamilies with amicable arrangements and friendly coparent- ing relationships may feel frustrated by the loss of control over their family life. Thus, children’s nonresident parent inevitably exerts some influence on stepfamily life, even if he or she is deceased, increasing a sense of helplessness and discouragement among members of the new family. These feelings are exacerbated when relationships across households are volatile, making even simple tasks feel impossible (e.g., deciding on a drop-off time and location). When such relationships are strained, a good strategy is restricting contact between the adults to necessary communications about the logistics of vis- its and schedules. In fact, Papernow (2008) used the metaphor of a “Dutch door,” in which the bottom half of the door remains closed to establish a firm boundary between families, and the top half remains open only for these essential communications about children. Issues with the other household can cause immense strain for stepfami- lies. When the formation of a stepfamily follows a hurtful divorce or breakup, interactions with the former partner and his or her household can be espe- cially difficult due to unresolved feelings of loss, hurt, and betrayal. There is ample evidence that relationships between former spouses that remain volatile negatively affect children (Ahrons, 2007) and their stepfamily adjustment by intensifying loyalty conflicts. It is sometimes possible to improve these rela- tionships by eliminating unnecessary contact and coming to an agreement about how coparenting will occur. Both of these approaches require parents’ participation, if these changes are to be successful. Sometimes such issues escalate, and therapy or mediation becomes essential as family members work toward accepting the difficulty of the situation and learning how to cope bet- ter within their own household rather than continue their attempts to change the other household. When to Move from Psychoeducation to Therapy Competent interpersonal communication is necessary to meet common step- family challenges and successfully navigate the adjustment process. When stepfamilies become stuck or mired in repetitive negative interactions, this often indicates a need to move from psychoeducation to therapy (Ganong et al., 2002). When underdeveloped interpersonal skills are not the culprit, intrapsychic issues may halt progress in adjustment, and therapy is warranted (Papernow, 2008). Moreover, stepfamily members who have a difficult time within a particular issue or specific interpersonal communication skill often struggle with deeper feelings of hurt, isolation, or fear that go beyond the 164 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES scope of basic psychoeducation and skills training. Depending on the depth of the intrapsychic issues, it can be helpful to work in individual sessions so a spouse can explore the issues without fear of saying something hurtful in front of his or her partner or children. Once the individual who is struggling with an intrapsychic issue better understands the source and the associated behavior pattern, the therapist can guide the sharing of any new insights with the partner in a couple session. The Value of Subsystems Therapy Key to assessing stepfamilies is clinicians’ ability to distinguish between nor- mal issues of stepfamily dynamics and underlying clinical issues that exist within the family or individuals in the family. Much of what is often done in therapy is psychoeducation rather than treatment of serious intrapersonal issues. However, we believe, as do others (Browning & Artelt, in press; ­Papernow, 2008; Visher & Visher, 1996), that successful therapy with step- families differs not only in what is done during sessions but also how the process is structured. As such, the overall structure of therapy must take into account differences between stepfamilies and first families. Many therapists who work with families are trained in systems theory (Ackerman, 1970), in which a first tenet is to do therapy with all members of the system so as to view the entire system and increase the intensity of therapy (Minuchin, 1974). Browning (1994) convincingly argued that adhering to this traditional model of family therapy and assessment with stepfamilies is prob- lematic in two ways. First, it further reinforces the myth that stepfamilies are not different than first-­marriage families. Second, because stepfamilies seeking professional help often experience intense conflict, likely lack requi- site skills, and have weak emotional bonds, they are less able to withstand increased intensity or the associated potent emotional experience. Fundamentally, stepfamilies are made up of subgroups, with relationships that often rely on the boundaries defining them to manage early stepfamily life. Beginning with the smallest possible subsystem (preferably the couple) and addressing its specific concerns is needed before adding others (Browning & Artelt, in press; Visher & Visher, 1996). Contrary to suggestions found in early writings on therapy with remarried families (e.g., Sager et al., 1983), we now understand that couple therapy is a necessary first step, even during the initial evaluation sessions, because once comments are shared in therapy, they cannot be taken back, and stepfamilies entering therapy can be fragile. The idea of seeing subsystems and purposefully completing the evalua- tion of a stepfamily without all family members present may seem contrary to what many therapists are trained to do. In part, systems therapy is based on the idea that therapists will not be able understand the overall dynamics of a family and its problems without seeing therapy unfold with all members in attendance. Further, the assumption is that there is no way of knowing how and when change needs to happen without this group process. However,  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 165 Visher and Visher (1996) pointed out that a couple is often unable or unwill- ing to discuss certain issues with stepchildren present, so seeing the partners alone can actually benefit the evaluation process by allowing them to speak freely, perhaps for the first time, about their stepfamily issues without children hearing. Conclusions Remarriage and stepfamilies are not new to family structures, although some recent variations are (e.g., cohabiting stepfamilies). The extant literature about the nature of these families has grown considerably since first appearing in the 1980s decade reviews published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (see Macklin, 1980; Price-­Bonham & Balswick, 1980). Furthermore, the quality of the empirical literature has improved greatly, so we have more confidence in the findings. Much of the stress and the feelings of frustration and helplessness that bring stepfamilies into therapy can be ameliorated through the psychoeduca- tion described here. Part of that reeducation, however, also includes helping families prioritize their issues and differentiate what can be changed from what cannot. Although identified as common stressors and experiences, not all stepfamily issues necessarily need to change for family members to feel satisfied and fulfilled. For those interesting in working with these families in professional set- tings where psychoeducation and family therapy occur, there is limited evi- dence regarding best practices (see Nicholson, Sanders, Halford, Phillips, & Whitton, 2008; Whitton et al., 2008). Yet those noted for their successful work with these families offer valuable recommendations, many of which are noted here. As we move forward, we encourage testing their recommendations in systematic ways so that best practices become a reality for stepfamilies in their various forms. References Ackerman, N. W. (1970). Family process. New York: Basic Books. Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families. Fathering, 5, 129–147. Adler-­Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage and step- family formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 448–459. Afifi, T. D. (2008). Communication in stepfamilies. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The interna- tional handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clini- cal environments (pp. 299–322). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Ahrons, C. R. (2007). Family ties after divorce: Long-term implications for children. Family Process, 46, 53–65. Allen, E. S., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Epstein, N., & Rankin-­E squer, L. A. 166 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES (2001). Decision-­making power, autonomy, and communication in remarried spouses compared with first-­married spouses. Family Relations, 50, 326–334. Amato, P. R. (1994). The implication of research findings on children in stepfami- lies. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 81–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father– child contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58, 41–53. Beaudry, M., Boisvert, J. M., Simard, M., Parent, C., & Blais, M. C. (2004). Com- munication: A key component to meeting the challenges of stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42(1–2), 85–104. Berger, L. M., Carlson, M. J., Bzostek, S. H., & Osborne, C. (2008). Parenting prac- tices of resident fathers: The role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Mar- riage and Family, 70, 625–639. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States [Vital and Health Statistics, 23(22)]. Washing- ton, DC: National Center for Health Statistics. Bray, J. (1999). From marriage to remarriage and beyond. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 253–271). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bray, J. H., & Kelly, J. (1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage, and parenting in the first decade. New York: Broadway. Brown, S. L., Lee, G. R., & Bulanda, J. R. (2006). Cohabitation among older adults: A national portrait. Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61, S71–S79. Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the mea- surement of family structure. Demography, 46, 85–101. Browning, S. (1994). Treating stepfamilies: Alternatives to traditional family ther- apy. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-­Tallman (Eds.), Steppareting: Issues in theory, research, and practice (pp. 175–197). Westport, CT: Praeger. Browning, S., & Artelt, E. (in press). Stepfamily therapy: A 10-step clinical approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bulanda, R. E., & Manning, W. D. (2008). Parental cohabitation experiences and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 593–618. Carlson, M. J., & Furstenberg, F. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipart- nered fertility among urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 718–732. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. Clapp, G. (2000). Divorce and new beginnings: A complete guide to recovery, solo parenting, co-­parenting and stepfamilies (2nd ed., pp. 307–343). New York: Wiley. Coleman, M., Fine, M. A., Ganong, L. H., Downs, K. J. M., & Pauk, N. (2001). When you’re not the Brady Bunch: Identifying perceived conflicts and resolution strategies in stepfamilies. Personal Relationships, 8, 55–73. Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1990). The uses of juvenile fiction and selfhelp books with stepfamilies. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 327–331.  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 167 Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288–1307. Coleman, M., Troilo, J., & Jamison, T. (2008). The diversity of stepmothers: The influences of stigma, gender, and context on stepmother identities. In J. Pryor (Eds.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 369–393). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Collishaw, S., Goodman, R., Pickles, A., & Maughan, B. (2007). Modeling the con- tribution of changes in family life to time trends in adolescent conduct problems. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 252–287. Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T. G., & Bridges, L. (2004). Children’s perspectives on their relationships with their nonresident fathers: Influences, outcomes, and implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 553–566. Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., & Cheng, H. (2005). Children’s responses to conflict between their different parents: Mothers, stepfathers, nonresident fathers, and nonresident stepmothers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 223–234. Falci, C. (2006). Family structure, closeness to residential and nonresidential parents, and psychological distress in early and middle adolescence. Sociological Quar- terly, 47, 123–146. Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2007). The longitudinal influ- ence of coparenting conflict on parental negativity and adolescent maladjust- ment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 687–702. Fisher, P., Leve, L., O’Leary, C., & Leve, C. (2003). Parental monitoring of children’s behavior: Variations across stepmother, stepfather, and two-­parent biological families. Family Relations, 52, 45–52. Flouri, E., Buchanan, A., & Bream, V. (2002). Adolescents’ perceptions of their fathers’ involvement: Significance to school attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 575–582. Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological Review, 72, 181–204. Ganong, L, H., & Coleman, M. (1994). Adolescent stepchild–­stepparent relation- ships: Changes over time. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-­Tallman (Eds.), Stepparet- ing: Issues in theory, research, and practice (pp. 87–104).Westport, CT: Praeger. Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Fine, M., & Martin, P. (1999). Stepparent’s affinity-­seeking and affinity-­maintaining strategies with stepchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 299–327. Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & Hans, J. D. (2006). Divorce as prelude to stepfamily living and the consequences of redivorce. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 409–434). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Weaver, S. (2002). Relationship maintenance and enhancement in stepfamilies: Clinical applications. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wen- zel (Eds.), A clinician’s guide to maintaining and enhancing close relationships (pp. 105–129). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldscheider, F., Kaufman, G., & Sassler, S. (2009). Navigating the “new” marriage market: How attitudes toward partner characteristics shape union formation. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 719–737. 168 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Goldscheider, F., & Sassler, S. (2006). Creating stepfamilies: Integrating children into the study of union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 275–291. Golish, T. (2003). Stepfamily communication strengths: Understanding the ties that bind. Human Communication Research, 29, 41–80. Golish, T., & Caughlin, J. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Com- munication Research, 30, 78–106. Gosselin, J., & David, H. (2007). Risk and resilience factors linked with the psycho- social adjustment of adolescents, stepparents, and biological parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 48(1–2), 29–53. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York: Norton. Greeff, A. P., & Du Toit, C. D. (2009). Resilience in remarried families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 114–126. Gunnoe, M. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of noncus- todial mothers and noncustodial fathers: Differences in socioemotional involve- ment and associations with adolescent adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 555–563. Halford, K., Nicholson, J., & Sanders, M. (2007). Couple communication in step- families. Family Process, 46, 471–483. Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2007). Nonresident father involvement and adolescent well-being: Father effects of child effects? American Sociological Review, 72, 990–1010. Heard, H. E. (2007). Fathers, mothers, and family structure: Family trajectories, parent gender, and adolescent schooling. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 435–450. Henry, P. J., & McCue, J. (2009). The experience of nonresidential stepmothers. Jour- nal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 185–205. Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: Norton. Higginbotham, B. J., & Felix, D. (2009). Economic predictors of marital quality among newly remarried rural and urban couples. Family Science Review, 14, 18–30. Hobart, C. W. (1991). Conflict in remarriages. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 15(3–4), 69–86. Hoffmann, J. P. (2006). Family structure, community context, and adolescent prob- lem behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 867–880. Hughes, M. H., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life. Jour- nal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 344–358. Jeynes, W. H. (2006). The impact of parental remarriage on children: A meta-­analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 40, 75–98. Johnson, A. J., Wright, K. B., Craig, E. A., Gilchrist, E. S., Lane, L. T., & Haigh, M. M. (2008). A model for predicting stress levels and marital satisfaction for step- mothers utilizing a stress and coping approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 119–142. Juby, H., Billette, J. M., Laplante, B., & Le Bourdais, C. (2007). Nonresident fathers and children: Parents’ new unions and frequency of contact. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1120–1245. King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 169 stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910– 928. King, V. (2007). When children have two mothers: Relationships with nonresident mothers, stepmothers, and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 1178–1193. Kreider, R. M. (2005). Numbering, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001 (Current Population Reports, P70-97). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Kreider, R. M. (2008). Living arrangements of children: 2004 (Current Population Reports, P70-114). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Kurdek, L. A. (1991). The relations between reported wellbeing and divorce history, availability of a proximate adult, and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Fam- ily, 52, 81–85. MacDonald, W., & DeMaris, A. (2002). Stepfather–­stepchild relationship quality: The stepfather’s demand for conformity and the biological father’s involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 121–137. Macklin, E. D. (1980). Nontraditional family forms: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 905–922. Marsiglio, W. (2004). When stepfathers claim stepchildren: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 22–39. Marsiglio, W., & Hinojosa, R. (2008). Managing the multifather family: Stepfathers as father allies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 845–862. Michaels, M. L. (2000). The stepfamily enrichment program: A preliminary evalua- tion using focus groups. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 61–73. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Moore, S., & Cartwright, C. (2005). Adolescents’ and young adults’ expectations of parental responsibilities in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43(3–4), 109–127. Nicholson, J. M., Sanders, M. R., Halford, W. K., Phillips, M., & Whitton, S. W. (2008). The prevention and treatment of children’s adjustment problems in step- families. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 485–521). Hobo- ken, NJ: Wiley. Papernow, P. (1996). Becoming a stepfamily: Patterns of development in remarried families. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Papernow, P. L. (2008). A clinician’s view of “stepfamily architecture”: Strategies for meeting the challenges. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of step- families (pp. 423–454). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pasley, K., Dollahite, D., & Ihinger-­Tallman, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Clinical applications of research findings on the spouse and stepparent roles in remar- riage. Family Relations, 42, 315–322. Pasley, K., & Lee, M. (2010). Stress and coping within the context of stepfamily life. In S. J. Price, C. A. Price, & P. C. McKenry (Eds.), Families and change: Coping with stressful events and transitions (4th ed., pp. 235–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pasley, K., & Moorefield, B. (2004). Stepfamilies: Changes and challenges. In M. Cole- man & L. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 317–330). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage. 170 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Pasley, K., Rhoden, L., Visher, E. J., & Visher, J. S. (1996). Successful stepfamily therapy: Clients’ perspectives. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 343– 357. Poortman, A. R., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2007). Dissolution risks in first and higher order marital and cohabitating unions. Social Science Research, 36, 1431–1446. PriceBonham, S., & Balswick, J. O. (1980). The noninstitutions: Divorce, desertion, and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 959–972. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Pre-­engagement cohabita- tion and gender asymmetry in marital commitment. Journal of Family Psychol- ogy, 20, 553–560. Robertson, J. (2008). Stepfathers in families. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international hand- book of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environ- ments (pp. 125–150). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rodgers, K., & Rose, H. (2002). Risk and resiliency factors among adolescents who experience marital transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 1024–1037. Sager, C. J., Brown, H. S., Crohn, H., Engel, T., Rodestein, E., & Walker, L. (1983). Treating the remarried family. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Saint-­Jacques, M. C., Cloutier, R., Pauzé, R., Sinard, M., Gagné, M., & Poulin, A. (2006). The impact of serial transitions on behavioral and psychological prob- lems among children in child protection services. Child Welfare, 85, 941–964. Schmeeckle, M. (2007). Gender dynamics in stepfamilies: Adult stepchildren’s views. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 174–189. Shelton, K. H., Walters, S. L., & Harold, G. T. (2008). Children’s appraisals of rela- tionships in stepfamilies and first families. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 250–276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundation for relationships success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675. Stewart, S. D. (1999). Nonresident mothers’ and fathers’ social contact with children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 894–907. Stewart, S. D. (2005). How the birth of a child affects involvement with stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 461–473. Stewart, S., Manning, W., & Smock, P. (2003). Union formation among men in the U.S.: Does having prior children matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 90–104. Svare, G. M., Jay, S., & Mason, M. A. (2004). Stepparents on stepparenting: An exploratory study of stepparenting approaches. Journal of Divorce & Remar- riage, 41(3–4), 81–97. Sweeney, M. M. (2007). Stepfather families and the emotional well-being of adoles- cents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 33–49. Sweeney, M. M. (2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family schol- arship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667–684. Sweeney, M. M., Wang, H., & Videon, T. M. (2009). Reconsidering the association between stepfather families and adolescent well-being. In H. E. Peters & C. M. Dush (Eds.), Marriage and family: Perspectives and complexities (pp. 177–225). New York: Columbia University Press. Teachman, T. (2008). The living arrangements of children and their educational well- being. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 734–761.  Remarriage and Stepfamily Life 171 Teachman, J., & Tedrow, L. (2008). The demography of stepfamilies in the United States. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 3–29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Tillman, K. H. (2008). “Non-­traditional” siblings and the academic outcomes of ado- lescents. Social Science Research, 37, 88–108. van Eeden-­Moorefield, B., & Pasley, K. (2008). A longitudinal examination of mari- tal processes leading to instability in remarriages and stepfamilies. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 231–249). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1996). Therapy with stepfamilies. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Weaver, S. E., & Coleman, M. (2005). A mothering but not a mother role: A grounded theory study of the nonresidential stepmother role. Journal of Social and Per- sonal Relationships, 22, 477–497. Whitton, S. W., Nicholson, J. M., & Markman, H. J. (2008). Research on interven- tions with stepfamily couples. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 455–484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Willetts, M. C., & Maroules, N. G. (2005). Parental reports of adolescent well-being: Does marital status matter? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43(1–2), 129– 148. Winkelman, M. (1994). Culture shock and adaptation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 121–126. Wu, L. L., & Thomson, E. (2001). Race differences in family experience and early sexual initiation: Dynamic models of family structure and family change. Jour- nal of Marriage and Family, 63, 682–696. Xu, X., Hudspeth, C. D., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2006). The role of cohabitation in remarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 261–274. Yuan, A. S. V. (2009). Sibling relationships and adolescents’ mental health. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1221–1244. Yuan, A. S. V., & Hamilton, H. A. (2006). Stepfather involvement in adolescent well- being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.