Journal of Family Therapy (1980), 2, 45-69

§tepfamilies : A reconstituted family system

Margaret Robinson*

Introduction

Reconstituted families are those in which a new member (or members) have been added to the family system of a biologically related natural family group. The new member or members have been chosen by at least one of the family members and are not by definition biologically related to them. Step-families are only among several kinds of family that might be described as reconstituted, others are adoptive and foster families. In such families however, the new member is always a child (or children) and there is very careful vetting and matching by the close involvement of care-giving agents as part of a legal process. There are of course increasing numbers of ‘common law’ families where the parental couple live with children from previous marriages or alliances, but the status of such families is more complicated. They will not be considered here, although many of the issues raised will be relevant to them. In this paper the focus will be on step-families where a parent may have died, deserted or divorced and where one or both partners of the former liaison have re-married. Where the children are minors and spend a certain amount of time with their natural parent, any step-parent inevitably steps into some kind of parental rBle whereby they are some kind of substitute for the parent. Whilst they and their new spouse have usually freely chosen each other as marriage partners and they may have considered their potential parenting qualities as part of that choice, there is no legal obligation that they should do so. In the cases where caregiving agents appointed by society are involved (such as those in which the children may be under supervision of the local authority) the reasons for this are rarely related to the fact of the remarriage.

This paper will attempt to look at the phenomena of the step-family, of which there are increasing numbers, will seek to find some explanation for the ambivalent attitudes of society towards such families and to con- sider the processes involved in becoming a step-family. The current legal

* Institute of Family Therapy, 5 Tavistock Place, London WC1 and Department of Social and Psychological Studies, Chelsea College, University of London.

45

Ol63-4445/80/020045+25 $02.00/0 0 1980 The Association for Family Therapy

46 M. Robinson

framework and its usefulness in defining rbles and responsibilities, will also be considered and an attempt will be made to define a typology of step-families which takes these into account. Some common problems which have significance for many step-families will be discussed together with their implications for a family therapy approach. Some final comments will highlight the lack of normative guidelines by which ‘successful’ step- families can be evaluated. The word ‘step’ comes from the old English ‘steop’ meaning an orphan and this is still the only prefix in common use to define a whole variety of relationships. Society seems to express its ambivalence by the use of the term step-child by attaching it to describe the neglected state of deprived socializing in other institutions. There is also confusion about what actually constitutes a step-relationship and half-siblings in a step-family are often denied their biological affinity by being described as step-siblings. It is perhaps indicative of society’s attitude that so little is known about step-parenting or step-families generally, although it is clear that the numbers are rising steadily. Actual numbers are not known, but in 1974, the number of divorces was 9 per 1000 marriages. In the same year the number of remarriages was 52 per 1000 thus indicating that remarriage makes marriage itself as popular as ever. Because there were 114 per 1000 couples who get divorced and 135 children under the age of 16, per 1000 are the offspring of divorcing couples. During 1974 approximately 14 735 children were adopted by their step- parents, either with the consent of the on-custodial parent or as a result of the court dispensing with such consent. Exact numbers of minor children living with step-parents is not known. The spouse marrying a partner who is already a parent, becomes a step-parent immediately they marry. The children come with the marriage as a ‘job lot’, thus resulting in ‘instant’ parenthood. The effect on step-parents, particularly those who have not yet been parents, is instantaneous and far reaching. One step- father married a young widow about his own age and in describing himself as an immature bridegroom commented: ‘I grew up from 16 to 30 overnight!’. For the purposes of this paper, the focus will be on step families who live together most of the time.

The ignorance about step-families may be partly connected with the many myths and folk tales which seem to depict such a situation as cruel and unhappy. Well known examples are, of course, Cinderella, Snow- White, Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel and many others. Freud and others after him, considered that such myths and folk tales are rationalized versions of universally held, but deeply unconscious fantasies. The creation of step-families following the death of a parent is now less common, whereas that following divorce may be becoming the direct or

Step-families 47

indirect experience of most children. This century has seen the develop- ment of considerable interest in the qualities of parenting and a good deal of research into the substitute parenting of fostering and adoption. Yet it is only very recently that there has been much interest in step-parenting.

A theoretical perspective The introduction of a step-parent into a family could be said to provide a vehicle on which the naturally ambivalent feelings felt towards natural parents can be projected. In this way the split between the idealized natural parent (whether alive or dead) and the wicked step-parent can become polarized and fixed. Occasionally the split may be the other way, with the ‘lost’ parent seen as all bad, and the step-parent being endowed with the hoped-for-goodness. If this primitive and unconscious splitting process is maintained then the resolution of the oedipal conflicts are also affected. There are many myths in which incestuous wishes towards the parent of the opposite sex are allowed free rein and are acted out with the step-parent or step-child. The Phaedra myth is one of the earliest but there are later and dramatized versions such as Don Carlos, or even Lolita. I t could therefore be argued that in fantasy, there is no ‘incest barrier’ between such primitive indulgences as there is concerning sexual fantasies between natural parents and their children of the opposite sex. I t could be argued that the envy towards the possibility of such orgiastic and incestuous relationships must be kept in place by repressive contempt. This would seem to provide an explanation not only for the hostility but also for some of the covert excitement which seems to be directed by society generally towards the step-family. Brenda Maddox (1975) refers to the opprobrium which society attaches to the step-parent and comments that there is an assumption that all step-children are automatically rejected, neglected or cruelly treated. There is some evidence that a significant proportion of children who are neglected or die as the result of non- accidental injuries are not living with both their natural parents. Recent research carried out by the N.S.P.C.C. (1977) indicates that only 2% of children (527) in their study are living with both their natural parents; two well known such examples being Maria Colwell (1974) and Wayne Brewer (1976) both of whom were living with natural mothers and step-fathers.

It is possible that the myths, partly based on facts, do lead to societal reinforcement of the inner uncertainties of step-family life. Many do not reveal the guilty secret of their quasi-family structure to outsiders at all, if they can avoid doing so. While help is prescribed for adoptive and foster families, it may be that societal pressures prevent step-families from seeking help early and directly. Often they wait until the problems have become

48 M . Robinson

entrenched or one or other family member is presented as the scapegoat. Most step-families would appear to regard themselves as deviant despite current trends which indicate that they may be becoming the norm. They tend to counterfeit by pretending to be what they are not and try to pass as if they were natural and biologically related families. Maddox (1975) considers that concealing the true situation is not a solution, many of the problems and tensions are real:

‘if the pretences are dropped and the differences recognized, step- families can be happy, even happier than some families in which there has never been more than one mother or father, but it takes more work.’

(1) Becoming a step-family (a) The family as a system. Family therapists take the whole family as a system, although Miller and Gwynne (1972) point out that the individual is an open system in his own right:

‘He has an inner world of thoughts and feelings that are derived from his biological inheritance and from what he has learnt from his lifetime of experience; he lives in an environment to which he has to relate himself in order to survive; and it is the function of the ego-the conscious, thinking mind-to regulate transactions across the boundary between inside and outside.’

Skynner (1976) and Sue Walrond-Skinner (1976) have developed the systems approach further in relation to all families. Walrond-Skinner writes:

‘a system is not a random collection of components, but an inter- dependent organisation in which the behaviour and expression of each component influences and is influenced by all the others . . .. A vital part of the system is its boundary which provides an interface both with its external environment and its own sub-systems and which circumscribes its identity in space and time.’

Communication in family systems is described as transactional, that is the interactions between the various family members occur within a relational context and with at least some shared history of experience. Families are described as open systems, that is that, although they are a stable entity, they are always developing and changing within a definable structure. They are also engaged in exchanges with other systems outside the family, both as individual members and as a family group. Inside the family system there are interactions between various sub-systems of the family system, such as those between the parents and between parents and children, but these will not be without their repercussions on the whole

Step-families 49 family as a system. In becoming a step-family, the natural parent and the step-parent usually embark on this family venture with loving hopefulness and enthusiasm. Typical feelings are a shared determination to put past unhappiness behind them, and that this time it will really be better. Often this determination to forget the past is premature and only serves as the precursor of the development of a strong family defensive system. Byng- Hall (1973) has described the creation of family myths which may serve the function of justifying the break-up of the natural family system, or to deny that there were times when the family was happy and functional. Of course there are families in which the remarriage, and the advent of a step-parent, is greeted with relief by all, including the children. Even in such circumstances the parental couple need to be realistic and sensitive to the inevitable disillusionments, when difficulties arise.

In one family where most of the parenting had in fact been done by the father, as the mother had been in and out of mental hospital or away from home since the birth of the first child, the children outwardly welcomed his remarriage to their schoolteacher. The initial problems arose from her difficulties over the change of rBles and in her reaction of sadness at giving up her successful career as head of department in a large school to become ‘not only ‘just another housewife’, but also an ‘instant mother’.

In the paragraphs which follow it might be considered that undue emphasis is placed on the negative and even destructive aspects of step- family life ; but it is important to remember that just as in everyday family life there are infantile and destructive elements running alongside and beneath the functioning of the family system. These are usually offset or compensated for, by the tender and humorous aspects of day to day living. In step-families, just as in ordinary ‘common or garden nuclear families’ there are problems which lie deeply buried in the unconscious mental life of individual family members which can come to the surface often in disguised form and make life difficult, at least from time to time. Many step-families are indeed apparently successful, though, interestingly, little is known about them; but there are particular problems with which step- families must struggle in one form or another and it is on these that this paper focuses particularly.

(b) Loss and change in r6les and relationships. If one of the marital partners dies, or leaves the family it could be argued that the system has broken down and that in some measure the incoming step-parent attempts to rejoin an already once functional family system which is struggling to reform as an ongoing system. In any case the family has experienced a serious loss, not only of a key parental member but also a loss which has changed the whole transactional functioning of the family as a system.

50 M . Robinson In families where the death of a parental partner has occurred, the

remaining family members must find individual and collective ways of coming to terms with the loss, through grief and mourning. Parkes (1975) has written of the importance of the ability to grieve in adult life. Writing of his research on widows and widowers he describes seven major com- ponents of grief as:

‘(1) a process of realization, i.e. the way in which the bereaved moves from denial or avoidance of recognition of the loss towards accep- tance ;

(2) an alarm reaction-anxiety, restlessness and the physiological accompaniments of fear ;

(3) an urgent need to search for and to find the lost person in some form; (4) anger and guilt, including outbursts directed at those who press the

bereaved person towards premature acceptance of his loss ; (5) feelings of internal loss of self, or mutilation; (6) identification-phenomena-the adoption of traits, mannerisms, or

symptoms of the lost person, with or without a sense of his presence within the self;

(7) pathological varients of grief, i.e. their reaction may be excessive and prolonged or inhibited and inclined to emerge in a distorted form.’

Pincus (1976) has written movingly of the importance of the ability to mourn any death or loss in the family and she demonstrates from her own case histories how failure to grieve had serious repercussions for the future family life of the person concerned. Children need to mourn for the lost parent as Bowlby’s more recent work on attachment and loss (1969, 1973) shows. He describes the stages of protest, despair and detachment which can be distinguished following the loss of a parent. In families where the parent has died, the nature of the grieving processes will be influenced by the suddenness of the death, the age of the children at the time of the parental death and the quality of the relationships within the family. For instance in a family where the six-year-old boy had found his mother dead after she had committed suicide, he described this in quite cheerful terms, as ‘she was asleep when I came in from school’. It was years later before he was to refer to this incident again. In families where there has been a break up, there is also the need for the family system to come to terms with the grief and mourning for the departed parent and for the loss of the family as they knew it. The process may well be complicated by the relationship with the lost parent becoming attenuated and the interactions

Step-families 5 1

less frequent, but this does not diminish the need to come to terms with the loss of the original family system. Bohannanen (1971) writes on the processes of divorce and describes what he calls the ‘six stations of divorce’ ; all of which may be happening either simultaneously or in quick succession and which continue until some resolution is found. He describes:

(1) The emotional divorce-which centres around the problem of the deteriorating marriage. This is the stage when the marriage is slowly becoming devoid of meaning for at least one of the marital partners and this must in turn affect their children.

(2) The legal divorce-which is based on the grounds on which the divorce was granted by the Court. This aspect of the divorcing couple will be considered later when the legal framework surrounding divorce and re-marriage will be discussed.

(3) The economic divorce-which deals with money and property. Few divorcing couples can afford to keep two establishments at the same standard of living as that which they had enjoyed together. For many couples who are better off the husband moves out, leaving his wife and children in the family home but with less money. In many less well off couples, the family home is sold or abandoned, and both parties are left to start life again at least temporarily homeless and with their income considerably depleted.

(4) The co-parental divorce-which deals with custody, single parent homes and visitation (access). This aspect of divorce will also be considered in the section on the legal perspective.

(5) The community divorce-surrounding changes of friends and com- munity that every divorce experiences. Even for families who remain in the same community there will be those friends whose friendships prove one sided, or those who make judgements about divorced couples or single parent families. For those who move away from the marital home there is the attempt to start again in a new neighbourhood, either as a single parent family or as a reformed step-family group struggling to establish themselves as an ongoing family.

( 6 ) Thepsychic divorce-dealing with the problem of regaining individual autonomy. This stage of coming to terms with the break up of the original marriage, may take years to accomplish, even though one or both of the partners have remarried. In many marriages, though the emotional, legal economic co-parental and community divorces have been achieved, the anger and pain which accompanies the losses, engendered by the psychic

52 M . Robinson

divorce rumble on down the years eating into the fabric of the family life of the now remarried partner.

Each of these stages of divorce require tasks of grief and mourning to be completed, not only for the marital partners, but also for the children. Marris (1974) writing of processes of change and innovation within society considers that all changes following the disruption of a familiar pattern of life can be understood in terms of loss and bereavement followed by grieving. He writes :

‘grief can be evoked not only by death, but by any profoundly disruptive loss of meaning . . . in response to an event, we identify it as belonging to a class of events and then discriminate the best action under the cir- cumstances. This behaviour will break down, first if there is no best action, whatever the event because the actor is robbed of essential purpose, as in severe personal bereavement. Second, it also breaks down if the event cannot be identified and every attempt to classify it is proved by what follows to have been mistaken . . .. Third, besides the loss of attachments and disintegration of a predictable environment, the meaning of life may be threatened prospectively. . . there is a fourth kind of bereavement which destroys only the meaning of the relationship, not the relationship itself.’

It could be argued that this has particular relevance to step-families, who are endeavouring to become a reconstituted family in a society which is, at best, ambivalent about them; whilst, simultaneously, both individually and collectively, they are struggling to come to terms with losses of their own.

For step-families who come together following either the death of one parent, or divorce, each of the family members will be engaged in differing strands of a mourning process connected not only with the differing aspects as described by Bohannen, but with changing relationships, and with the loss of the original and intact family system. Obviously the actual processes of grief and mourning will vary according to the ages of the children and the quality of relationships within the original family group. The length of time between the physical departure of the ‘lost’ parent and the arrival of the new step-parent, is also likely to influence if not determine, the stage of the mourning processes which have been reached. The in- coming step-parent cannot avoid being caught up in the mourning processes which involve confusion, anger, guilt and despair as well as grieving. Whatever the cause of the break-up of the natural family system each individual family member will be engaged in individual mourning processes for the lost parent and as part of the family system grieving for the loss of the family-that-once-was. These distinctive but interconnected

Step-families 53

processes may be in conflict with one another and may also make it difficult, if not impossible, for family members to engage in a shared process of comforting which usually assuages some of the painful mourning processes. Much of this grieving will remain unconscious and may even be unrecognized, but it makes considerable demands on the sensitivity and understanding of the incoming step-parent, who is often full of resolute hopes and good intentions. Whether the family-that-was, broke up because of the death of the natural parent, or because of divorce, the remaining spouse is likely to have some grief for the loss of that family, even though they may have completed their own mourning for the marital relationship. It is difficult to share such feelings with the new marriage partner who is, after all, a replacement. Feelings of grief are often based on comparisons of old and new and may build up and find expression in hostility or even outbursts of anger. The tentative efforts of the step- family group to reconstruct a family system which incorporates the step- parent, is in a very fragile state and attacks from within, or without can be very damaging. The author has the impression that significant others, often key extended family members, such as grandparents, can provide a safe place for the expression of the more potentially destructive aspects of the mourning process. By their recognition of the newly reconstituted family system they can provide acceptance and crucial nurturance for it in the early stages.

For the newly married (or remarried) step-parent there are also indivi- dualized mourning processes to achieve, but these often remain un- conscious and unrecognized even by the step-parents themselves. They have freely chosen to marry a natural parent and at best may regard their step-children as part of the person they love, though often they can be seen as the price. If they have not previously been married, there will be the usual processes of giving up some of their individual autonomy into their own version of the segregated or non-segregated couples as described by Bott (1971). In addition to this r6le change, they are also involved in another, their adaptation to instant parenthood; most parents-to-be, have nine months in which to negotiate this rite of passage and also some experience of partnership alone with their spouse. For the step-parent this shock of parenthood is instantaneous with the marriage and the grief at the loss of the intimate twosome phase of marriage is gradually realized and long lasting. (Almost all the couples I have met have talked of their sadness at missing out this early stage of marriage.) For the step-parent, the step-children are unlikely to be potentially lovable babies, some of them may be quite big children and quite unlike those which he or she had fantasied they might one day have. Some of them may even appear

54 M . Robinson

to be replicas of the first natural parent, and they will all have been brought up in a family system where the family values ar,d day-to-day rituals are different fromthe step-parent’s own, and yet this family contains their own newly married spouse. Thus the new step-parent will simul- taneously have to manage, not only some loss of individual autonomy, but also the loss of freedom which becoming a parent implies. The step-parent misses out some of the stages of their step-children’s lives and at the same time feels jealous of the past life of their marital partner. Furthermore, they must also take on at least some of the responsibilities involved with parenthood, the attitudes and skills connected with physical and emotional caring, the exercise of discipline and often financial responsibilities too. The step-children, experiencing their own difficulties, may well be defiant and difficult, reject the newcomer and play both or all three parents off against each other. Finally, for the new step-parent it is most unlikely that the newly reconstituted family will be able financially to extend to the same number of children which the step-parent could reasonably expect to bear, if they had married a partner who was not already a parent.

Before considering the legal perspective and how it influences or hinders the functioning of the new step-family system, it is important to summarize the position thus far. Step-families need to be able to recognize and allow for both the individual and family system experience of grief for the loss of family life that has gone before so that this can be worked through and some basis found for the new family life that it is hoped will come. Commonly the recognition of the loss of what is passed is mourned along- side the hopefulness and growth of the attachments which have to be nurtured within the new beginning. Pincus (1976) expresscs this succinctly when she writes:

‘divorce like death, means loss and bereavement. Marriages that cnded in divorce may be regarded as failures, yet unless some new insight has been gained through the pain of this failure, here too the previous pattern of interaction may be almost compulsively re-enacted in the new marriage.’

Newly reconstituted step-families have to learn to let go of many of the old patterns of living and renegotiate and develop new methods of trans- action which are compatible with the new family system.

The legal perspective

The law in relation to step-families is complex, confused and often in- consistent as Maidment points out (1975). In this section an attempt will

Step-families 55

be made to describe the present situation at least as regards to the key issues, but it is important to remember that the current state of the law is apt to lead to appeals on specific aspects and interpretations of the law and these judgements may in turn highlight further ambiguities in relation to family law.

(a) The divorce law

Since 1973 divorce can be granted on the submission of proof that the marriage has broken down because one of the alleged following ‘facts’ has been proved. Eekelaar et al. (1977) describe the facts set forth in the act as follows:

(1) that the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;

(2) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

(3) that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;

(4) that the parties have lived separate and apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to a decree being granted;

(5) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of a petition.

Eekelaar et al. (1977) found that respondents to divorce petitions were

‘far more likely to react to a petition indicating an intention to when behaviour was alleged than in other cases.’

In such cases the procedures for divorce took longer and therefore the period of uncertainty regarding decisions about the care of the children was also longer. Couples petitioning for a divorce are required to make a statement as to the ‘arrangements proposed for the care of their children’ and since the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act (1958) the divorce court judge is required to satisfy himself that these are satisfactory at the time of the hearing of the decree nisi.

During the six weeks which must elapse before the granting of the decree absolute, further inquiries or welfare reports may be submitted and before pronouncing the decree the judge must issue a ‘certificate of

56 M. Robinson

satisfaction’ that the arrangements proposed for the children are satis- factory; the best that can be done under the circumstances; or that it is not practicable to make any arrangements. The judge may adjourn for a further investigation, or decide to see the children himself in his chambers. Either party to divorce may ask for a welfare report and this will be provided automatically should the child be ‘in care’ or a ward of the court ; and the judge may ask for a report.

(b) Custody

Eekelaar et al. (1977) examined the custody arrangements of 855 cases in England and Scotland of which 652 were in England and Wales and it is to these that reference will be made. They found that in most cases custody had been settled at the time of the decree nisi and that the tendency of the minor children of the marriage to remain with their mother had continued. It did seem to be crucial where the children were living at the time of the presentation of the petition as the final outcome only differed in 2% of the cases. A small number of uncontested cases (8.4%) and a large percentage of the contested cases (62.2%) were settled after an adjourn- ment. Of those so adjourned, (103 in all) only 31 were adjourned for a welfare report. In their conclusions to this pilot study they comment:

‘if there is a dispute between the parties over custody and the outcome is to leave the children where they are, it would seem that there is room for the provision of a counselling service which will assist the parties in adjusting to this situation. It is possible that the time of the welfare officer might profitably be used in this direction and should not be confined to simply informing the court of the background to the case.’

Jarvis (1977) writes that the Probation Service

‘is currently supervising some 13 000 children whose parents are divorced or separated and additionally has responsibility for the supervision of several hundred children who are wards of court.’

There has been an increasing tendency to make what are described as split or joint custody orders where one parent may have the legal custody of the child and the other have care and control in the sense that the child actually lives with them. Freeman (1976) writes:

‘The actual custodian is the person with whom the child lives; he has duties and limited powers. Whilst major decisions are outside his jurisdiction, the day to day problems can be solved by him.’

Step-families S7

Major decisions seem to be those which have lasting ramifications for the child’s life, such as those about the type of education, emigration and consent to ‘under age marriage’. I t can be seen that where step-parents are involved in situations where the natural parent has custody in fact (care and control), the legal situation is ripe for conflict.

The Children Act (1975) has attempted to remedy this situation, but in another way has led to further complications. Under this act Sec. 10 (3) applications for adoptions of step-children where

‘the married couple consist of a parent and step-parent of the child, the court shall dismiss the application if it considers that the matter would be better dealt with under Sec. 42 (Orders for custody) of the Matri- monial Causes Act 1973.’

The implications of these seem to be that whereas more step-parents will be appointed joint custodians together with the natural parent, this will reduce the number of step-parent adoptions which up until 1974 were steadily growing in number (Section 10 (3) has not yet been implemented). This has particular implications for families where there is a step-father, because it is only possible legally to change a child’s surname by adoption. As it is, of course many children are Known by other surnames but in situations where proof of identity is required (such as registration for school) the legal surname must be supplied.

In law, the step-parent has no legal status to their step-child, although they may have duties if they have accepted the child as a child-of-the- family. If, for instance the custodial natural parent wished to protect the continuity of the step-family in the event of his own death, he could only do this by nominating the step-parent as testamentary guardian under the Guardianship of Minors Act (1971).

There have already been some controversial appeal cases where the court has refused to grant an adoption order to the step-parent and the general situation remains unclear. A recent article by Maidment (1976) draws attention to the view of the Houghton Committee (1972) that:

‘a step-parent ought to be able to acquire legal rights and obligations in respect to a step-child short of adoption.’

She suggests that: ‘when a person married another who already had a child from a previous association the law should require that by his voluntary act of marriage he thereby takes over the legal rights and duties which the parent spouse already has. He will thus be responsible for the child just as the natural parent whom he is marrying. In this way the law could be a positive agent in furthering responsibility and family solidarity.’

58 M . Robinson

Eekelaar et al. (1977) found that joint custody was given in o d y a small number of cases (3%). But contrary to their expectations these were more likely to be in cases where custody had been contested; this was particularly surprising and they quote the comments of Wrang J. in the case of Jussa v. Jussa where he said of joint custody orders with care and control to one parent:

‘it is an order which should only be made where there is reasonable prospect that the parties will cooperate.’

(c) Access

The question of access is bound up with custody and the extent of access is usually negotiated via the lawyers. The divorce judge merely giving approval when he signs the certificate of satisfaction. Often the details are left unspecified, but in other cases particular details are spelt out. There is however a good deal of difference between a couple of hours 2

week or one Saturday a fortnight (two common arrangements) and ‘staying access’ where the child can stay overnight and even spend holidays with the non-custodial parent. It is over the question of access that there is further conflict between the rights and needs of parents and children. Eekelaar et al., only considered the question of access during divorce proceedings, this may have already been determined by a Magistrates’ Court and remained unvaried at the time of the divorce. Goode (1956) researched on paternal access and Marsden (1973) on single parent mothers. Both stressed the difficulties of keeping up access visiting for a number of years. Visits are missed, then become irregular, the children find new interests and withdraw. This also seems to be the experience where the natural father is the custodial parent as the research of George and Wilding (1972) shows. However, as Goode and Bohannen point out, parents not infrequently use their children (perhaps unconsciously, in order to con- tinue their unresolved and often negative relationship difficulties with their previous spouse). Bohannen in writing of the co-parental divorce, points out :

‘this odd word indicates that the child’s parents are divorced from each other-not the child.’

Maidment (1976) concludes that there is a poignant need for lawyers and other experts in the child care field to collaborate both in the operation of the law of access and in its reform. She quotes Langham on access now being regarded as the basic right of the child:

Step-families 59

‘the companionship of a parent in ordinary circumstances being of such immense value to the child that there is a basic right in him to such companionship. I for my part prefer to call it a basic right of the child rather than a basic right in the parent. That only means this, that no court should deprive a child of access in either parent unless it is wholly satisfied that it is in the interests of the child that access should cease and that is a conclusion at which a court should be extremely slow to arrive.’

Freud, Solnit and Goldstein (1973) appear to take a similar view; they consider that situations where child placement is considered (and they include custody after divorce) then:

‘the law must make the child’s needs paramount’. and indeed it is required to do so under the Children Act 1975. Eekelaar et al., conducted their research just after the report of the Committee of Inquiry in relation to supervision provided in relation to Maria Colwell highlighted the importance of step-parents, but were unable to find any specific evidence which indicated that the courts were interested in the attitudes of a possible step-parent when completing the certificate regarding arrangements for the care of children in a divorce case. Maidment (1 976) comments :

‘the quality of the relationship with the step-parent and the non- custodial natural parent is of vital importance, whether such a relation- ship is conducted mainly in phantasy via the custodial parent and perhaps more importantly via the children when the non-custodial parent exercises their right of access to them; or whether the relationship has any basis in reality, thus allowing the correction of stereotyped phantasies on all sides within the reassembled family.’

(d) Maintenance Maintenance is negotiated between the parties’ solicitors at the time of divorce, if it has not already been agreed during the period of separation. Bohannen writes of ‘economic divorce’ and for many step-families there can be little doubt that it is the question of financial strain which under- mines step-families’ lives. The law related to marital breakdown is extremely complex; and at present there are two distinct sets of law, one operating within the Magistrates Courts Act (1960) and the other primarily based on the Matrimonial Causes Act (1973).*

* At the time of writing the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Court Act ( 1 978) though on the statute books has not been implemented.

60 M . Robinson

The Finer Committee (1974) comment:

‘the result has been to produce two sets of laws dealing with matrimonial breakdown, operating concurrently, but in different courts, and standing both in the spirit and the letter in the most remarkable contrast to each other.’

Both courts are empowered to make maintenance orders for wives and children of the marriage; but in Magistrates’ courts where a separation order might be granted, the award of maintenance is guided by the doctrine of matrimonial offence. The Finer Committee paid particular attention to the failure to maintain wives and children and found that in cases where there were court orders for their maintenance 45% of the orders were complied with regularly, 40% were irregularly complied with and the remaining 15% fell between a degree of compliance of 11 and 74%. The Supplementary Benefits Commission point out that 91% of the orders falling below the 117; of compliance were not paid at all. This then is the financial background on which many step-families are endeavouring to function as an economic entity. While even for well-off families there will be financial constraints, especially if both families have young children. For those families who are less well off it is clear that at least one of the two families will be dependent on some form of state supplement.

This is a crucial aspect of step-family life, and yet it is one about which very little is directly known as regards the effect on family functioning. Clearly guilt and resentment will intermingle about the financial constraints involved in two families endeavouring to live (almost) as cheaply as one. Even in families where the step-father takes on the financial responsibility for his wife’s children, (as seemed to be the case in most working class families with which I have contact) there are inevitably times when this is resented.

A typology of step-families

Drawing on descriptions of various families who have become step-families the typology outlined is based both on the major underlying factors which led to the creation of a step-family and also indicates their current legal status (although as has already been pointed out, this is often confused and uncertain). Brief illustrations are given of each type of family drawn either from research in progress with step-families, or those of my acquaintance. These indicate typical areas of difficulty which might commonly be experienced by this kind of family which family therapists might consider when such families are referred to them. However, as has

Step-families 61

already been indicated there are basic facts which are important to ascertain about any step-family, not only so that the record is straight between the therapist and the family, but also because these facts often lie at the root of the present problems in the step-family. A brief summary will be given at the end of the next section.

(a) Legitimating step-families

These are step-families created by the introduction of a step-parent who has married the parent of an illegitimate child. Usually, but by no means always this would be a step-father. The kind of problems experienced by this family would very much depend on the age of the child at the time of the mother’s marriage and whether in fact the natural father had had a relationship with the child, whether or not he remains in touch with the family.

Example. I have not had first hand contact as a therapist with such families, though I was approached by the hitherto unmarried mother of a child, now twelve, who asked how she should prepare her son for the possible advent of a step-father, as she now wished to think of marrying. The problems which one would expect to look for in such a family would be those related to sharing and discipline as well as the needs of a pubescent boy to discover more about his father in order to discover his own identity.

In strictly legalistic terms such step-families could only be described as legitimating if the child is adopted by the step-parent, or if the natural parent married the other parent of the child.

Example., In another family this in fact happened and the now-married parents went on to have several other children, the guilty secret of the eldest child’s conception and birth being kept until she was adult, when she discovered it on finding her birth certificate.

(b) Revitalized step-families

This kind of step-family is created by the remarriage of the natural parent to a step-parent following the death of a previous spouse. Such a process could be described as bringing new life into the family.

Example. In one such revitalized family where the father left with two young children following the death of his wife in a car crash, married an au pair who came to look after the children subsequent to his wife’s death.

62 M . Robinson

Here the problems were particularly related to the grief and mourning difficulties of the children, when aged eight and six. Their father, who was not a man who found it easy to discuss his own feelings of grief, found it difficult to help them. In this case, a sensitive maternal aunt, though deeply grieved herself and in many ways affronted by her brother-in-law’s actions, was able to use her own deep attachment to her deceased sister and in continuing to be in touch with the children, particularly the little girl, was able to help her.

Example. The second case of a revitalized step-family is more compli- cated. The natural mother, who had a long history of depressive illness and suicide attempts, eventually successfully committed suicide at about the time her husband was having an affair with a young colleague. The husband was left with a boy of six who had found his mother dead on returning from school. The man married his girlfriend and she initiated treatment for the whole family. After two years family therapy, the family were able to think of themselves as a family, the guilt of the parents was somewhat assuaged and treatment was terminated without the mother’s suicide ever being discussed with the boy, now eight; although there was some indication that he knew. Many years later, the step-mother came into therapy again, this time with the realization that the marriage which was based on her guilt was not a happy one; and that her task of ‘mothering’ the boy was nearly complete. With her help the boy was able to face the truth about his mother’s death and to confront his father with it, before he left home to go to University.

The major typical problems in revitalized families would be those connected with the loss of the natural parent, the process of grief and mourning; but also the idealization of the deceased parent.

(c) Reassembled step-families

These are families where a step-parent is introduced following a divorce from the natural parent and where the step-parents themselves, although they may have previously been married, have not themselves been bio- logical parents. These are probably the most common type of step- families and there are several different categories based on the main reason for the remarriage.

(i) Love-match. This is the kind of step-family where the natural parent falls in love with another partner and eventually the marriage is dissolved, the now free spouse marrying the partner for whom they have been willing to break up their marriage. In many such cases, the natural parent not

Step-families 63

only loses their partner they may also pay the price of losing custody of their children and this is especially likely in the case of fathers. In families where the step-parent is intimately connected with the breakup of the family, the burden on the new marriage to be immediately and visibly successfully is considerable. There are often difficulties when inevitable realities break into the initial idealization of the new relationship. In such families, where the parent is the custodial parent, and the step-parent is immediately thrust into the instant parent rble, the resentments about having insufficient time alone as a couple are likely to build up, particularly on the part of the step-parent, who is also struggling to learn the tasks of parenting.

Example. Such was my own case, where as a young woman of twenty-five I married and within three years became step-parent to two boys one of eight and one of four, and had a daughter of my own. The guilt plus the sheer hard work of learning to be a parent led me into analysis because of depression (but eventually also to my interest in the subject). Other members of the family also had individual therapy for in those days therapy as a family was not considered.

(ii) Free choice. These marriages are those where the partner left as the custodial parent following divorce manages fairly adequately enough, but eventually although having regained their self esteem and autonomy decides to take the risk of marrying again. Such marriages are often made after years of single parenthood and in the wisdom of maturity, and are frequently able to encompass the necessary tolerance and affection required to accept another’s children.

Example. However, one such family where the custodial mother married a man who they both described as a ‘crusty old batchelor’ had to work exceptionally hard at allowing the parental couple the free time to pursue their own individual and shared interests.

(iii) Convenience. This sub-group of marriages might also apply in the case of revitalized step-families here the need for someone to look after the family (whether financial or in caretaking terms or even both) is the paramount consideration. Many step-parents (perhaps particularly step- mothers) secretly suspect that the major reason for their partner’s choice was for someone to look after either them plus the children or to look after the children. Such fears, while they may in fact contain elements of the original ‘truth’ may also be exaggerated by the step-parent’s feelings of inadequacy in their new r81e and in turn undermine the marriage and family life.

64 M . Robinson

Example. A family who came into this category was that of a man whose wife ran off with a dashing visitor from overseas, leaving him to return to his own mother who spent many years bringing up their adopted son. When paternal grandmother’s health began to deteriorate and father’s self esteem was restored, he remarried a clerk in his bank who in fact sensibly faced this problem in herself rather than allowing it to develop into bitterness.

A typical difficulty for reassembled step-families of all kinds is that ofthe step-parents inexperience and uncertainties in the new r6le which is so abruptly thrust upon them. Often they have unrealistically high expecta- tions of themselves, and the custodial parent, who has after all had more time to come to terms with the requirements of parenthood, does not always realise what a quick transition is required and perhaps because of difficulties of their own in relation to their own guilt, are less under- standing than they might be.

But the major difficulties for all reassembled step-families are those connected with the necessary sharing with the non-custodial parent and their new spouse. Even if access tails off because of the inevitable diffi- culties the reassembled step-family still has to share the children with another parent, or even another family. Increasingly, children are shared between the two families which are linked by what have been described by Bohannen as divorce chains. At least at the beginning of step-family life, the jealousies, uncertainties and irritations which are stirred up by this requirement to share, can lead to resentment and anger, even in families who had prided themselves on being reasonable. As Bohannen describes in his stations of divorce, the co-parental and economic divorces are two stages in a process and these are intimately connected with the psychic divorce which in turn, needs to be completed before the step- family can incorporate the realities of sharing with another family.

(c) Combination step-families

These families, also increasing in numbers, were first described by Gerda Schulman (1972). These are families where both parents have previously been married and have children from their first marriages. I n some cases the previous parents are both dead, in which case the children are usually brought together to form one family. In other cases where both parents have been divorced, this also happens. There are increasing numbers of families where one set of children live with the family (usually the mother’s children) and another set live away but visit (usually the father’s children). As with the reassembled step-families, combination step-families can be

Step-families 65 divided into the same sub-categories of love match, free choice and con- venience. It is important to consider with such families whether different sets of children have the same or differing views about the basis on which their natural parents remarried.

Example. One family where both the parents had been married before and were custodial parents, considered the matter very carefully and dis- cussed it with his son and her daughter who were both the same age, before they married. His son saw his natural mother regularly each week, and this led to some problems for her daughter who had never seen her natural father, as he had deserted her mother when she was still a baby. The natural parents both considered they had been abandoned by their previous spouses, met at a support group for single parents liked each other and decided to get married. At the time I saw them they had a new baby of their own and told me that they had now belatedly fallen in love with each other.

Example. Another family demonstrates the complicated divorce chains. The husband in a family fell in love with the wife of another couple with whom he and his first wife were friendly. Both families had young children. Eventually the first couple were divorced, the wife moving away with their two children, and the husband marrying the woman with whom he had fallen in love, who came to live in the house of the first family with her two children. Her first husband saw their two children regularly and when he remarried a divorcee they had a child of their own. The first wife agreed with her ex-husband that he should see the children regularly and they returned for holidays to stay at their original home with their father, step- mother and their step-siblings. The first wife now has an older man friend who wants to marry her, but she remains unsure about remarriage. The man who gave up his first wife and children in order to marry his second wife, is now trying to have a child of his own with his second wife. This woman, who has married the man she wanted and kept her own children while he lost the custody of his, has been having frequent mis- carriages which causes her husband and herself some grief. The couples in this tangled chain have each had marital therapy, but there are indica- tions that perhaps some kind of network therapy would help them in their present situation, especially now that the bitterness and anger is beginning to diminish.

Implications for the family therapy approach

This paper has primarily presented a theoretical approach to step-families and as such may be useful to guide the thinking of any care-giving

66 M . Robinson

professionals who may use their own particular expertise in their contact with step-families. However, by way of summary it might be useful to consider the areas in which therapists who use a family therapy approach to their work may expect to focus in the course of their treatment. Some common areas for therapeutic focus:

(a) Grief and mourning It will be markedly apparent that the major healing process which must take place within step-families is that of facing and working through the various losses which the step-family have experienced. For some families these can be shared in a family group, for others individual or marital therapy will be more appropriate. Some indication can be gauged initially by ascertaining, both the length of time that the family had between the breakup of the first family and the remarriage and also the length of time that the step-family have spent together trying to become a family.

(b) Loyalties Most members of step-families suffer from a conflict of loyalties. Nagy and Spark (1973) writing of the invisible loyalties of the family write:

‘Members of a group may behave loyally out of external coercion, conscious recognition of interest in membership, consciously recognized feelings of obligation and unconsciously binding obligation to belong . . . family loyalty is characteristically based on biological, hereditary kinship’

Nagy and Spark point out that there is inevitable restructuring of loyalties both vertically as between the generations and horizontally between family members. They indicate that :

‘the more rigid the original loyalty system, the more severe the challenge for the individual. Whom do you choose, me, him or her?’

In step-families their loyalty conflicts are intensified and it is the task of the therapist to enable the new step-family to restructure their ties of loyalty so as to enhance the commitment to the family in which they are living; and yet to maintain or release their loyalty ties to the family that is lost as is appropriate to the reality situation.

(c) Sharing As with most therapeutic situations there is a need to focus on the problems of sharing within three or multiple person relationships. In all families

Step-families 67

there are jealousies and uncertainties which have their basis in the Oedipal problems of the family members. But in step-families these are inescapable. For the step-children they will have to face the inevitable conflicts of having two mothers or two fathers (perhaps both) and all that this implies for them. For the custodial parent, they will have to face living with the experience of having two spouses, even if one of them is dead. They will also have to live with the guilt surrounding a love match or the feelings of rejection, resulting from their desertion by their previous spouse. For the step-parent, they will have to confront and live with, being second choice and with the constant reminder that they are not the biological parent of their step-children. There are many different versions of such triangles within step-families, which may extend to one parent with natural children and to the grandparents. Once the loss has been faced and worked through, the problems of sharing may constitute the major part of the therapy.

What is a successful step-family?

So little is known about the functioning of step-families, particularly those who do not come to therapeutic attention that it is impossible to answer this question. Chester (1977) conducted a survey of step-families through a woman’s magazine and from this concludes that four out of five step- families, are reasonably satisfied with their marriage. My own impression, like that of Maddox, is that many step-families do in fact achieve ‘success’ but at a price. For instance some of the families who refused to take part in my research interviews substantiated this refusal with such apologetic remarks as ‘that’s all over now. and ‘we don’t think about it any more’, ‘we don’t want to open old wounds, it would upset the children’ ‘life is particularly difficult for us just now because . . . (step-child or step-parent) is having a bad patch’.

There are indications that particular phases of difficulty are those when a new and parentally inexperienced and usually young, step-mother joins a family and during the adolescence of daughters where there is a step- father in the family.

As therapists we can get little help from expected societal goals for the functioning of step-families as we can from the expectations of ordinary nuclear families. Should we for instance, encourage the step-families who come to us for help to aspire to behave ‘as if’ they were ordinary families, a goal which it seems that many set for themselves as an outward sign of success. Indeed many step-families pass as ordinary nuclear families wit h apparently considerable success. Such families, however, must always

68 M . Robinson live with fear that their guilty secret must emerge, and it often does, usually around the traditional family occasions where rituals are required, such as birth, marriage and death. Or should we encourage step-families both to face the painful truth of their reconstituted state and openly acknowledge their status, both within the family system and its extended family and friendship network and even to the world at large? Maddox supports this view and there are some indications that there is a shift in the generally prevailing attitudes of society to take a more tolerant attitude towards step-families.

As it is, we can only continue to explore with those families who come to us for help, not only the problems which lie at the root of their diffi- culties, how they themselves face and resolve their difficulties and to com- pare any similarities or differences.

References BOHANNEN, P. (1971) Divorce and After. New York. Doubleday. BOSZORMENYI-NAGY, I. and SPARK, G. M. (1973) Invisible Loyalties. New York.

BOTT, E. (1971) Family and Social Network. London. Tavistock Publications. BOWLBY, J. (1973) Separation: Anxiety and Anger. London. Hogarth Press. BYNG-HALL, J. (1973) Family myths used as defence in conjoint family therapy.

CHESTER, R. (1977) What do you say about Step-parents? Woman’s Own February

Committee of Inquiry into the Supervision Provided in Relation to Maria Colwell

Committee of Inquiry into the Supervision Provided in Relation to Wayne Brewer

EEKELAR, J., CLIVE, E., CLARKE, K. and RAIKES, S . (1977) Custody after Diuorce.

FREEMAN, M. D. A. (1977) The Children Act (1975) Community Care. November

FREUD, A., SOLNIT, A. and GOLDSTEIN, J. (1973) Beyond the Best Interests of the

GEORGE, V. and WILDING, P. (1972) Motherless Families. London. Routledge and

GOODE, W. J. (1956) After Divorce. New York. The Free Press. Guardianship of Minors Act (1971). JARVIS, F. (1977) Which way probation? Community Care, November 3rd. MADDOX, B. (1976) The Half Parent: Living with Other People’s Children. London.

MARRIS, P. (1974) Loss and Change. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul. MAIDMENT, S. (1975) Access conditions in custody orders. British Journal of Lazo

MAIDMENT, S . (1976) The step relationship and its legal status. Anglo-American

Harper Row.

British Journal of Medical Psychology, 46, 239-249.

12th.

(1974). London. H.M.S.O.

(1976). London. H.M.S.O.

Oxford. Centre for Socio-Legal Studies.

3rd.

Child. New York. The Free Press.

Kegan Paul.

Andre Deutsch.

and Society.

Law Review.

Step-families 69 MAIDMENT, S. (1978) The future of divorce. Family Law, 7. MARSDEN, D. (1973) Mothers Alone. Harmandsworth. Penguin. Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act (1958). MILLER, E. and GWYNNE, G. (1972) A LzjFe Apart. London. Tavistock Publications. PARKES, C. M. (1975) Bereavement; Studies of Grief in Adult Life. Harmondsworth.

PINCUS, L. (1976) Death and the Family. London. Faber and Faber. Report of the Finer Committee into One Parent Families (1974) London. H.M.S.O. SAMUELS, A. (1976) The child, the broken marriage, the court and the social

SCHULMAN, G. (1972) Myths that intrude on the adaptation of the step-family.

Social Trends (1974) London. H.M.S.O. WALROND-SKINNER, S. (1976) Family Therapy: the Treatment of Natural Systems.

London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Penguin.

worker. Family Law, 6.

Social Casework, 53, 135-137.