Family-centered practice with stepfamilies

Kelley, Patricia

ABSTRACT: The stepfamily is one of the fastest growing family forms, and family-centered practitioners can expect to have such families in their case loads. Differences between stepfamilies and biologically based families need to be understood by practitioners, because work with these families requires different approaches. The author notes these differences as well as the usefulness and problematic aspects of the systemic and behavioral approaches traditionally used by family-centered practitioners in work with stepfamilies. An integrated model for working with stepfamilies, developed by the author, is presented. This model integrates postmodern approaches into eco-systemic and behavioral work.

NOWLEDGE ABOUT STEPFAMILIES is important for family-centered practitioners because stepfamilies are so prevalent today, increasing evidence suggests that children in stepfamilies are at risk for behavioral and emotional problems, and these families have a different form and function that need to be understood by professionals. Although traditional family-centered approaches are applicable to and useful in work with stepfamilies, some modifications are needed. In this article, these differences and approaches to work with stepfamilies are described and discussed. The usefulness and problematic aspects of the systems and behavioral approaches traditionally used by family-based practitioners are assessed, and the inclusion of postmodern approaches in this work is explicated through the presentation of an integrated practice model. A review of existing research, the author's own study of healthy stepfamily functioning (Kelley, 1992; 1995a), and the author's clinical experience are described.

The term "stepfamily" is used instead of remarried, because families presenting themselves for family-centered services may not be legally married. Other terms used to decrease the negative connotation of stepfamilies also present problems. The term "blended" (Poppen & White, 1984) is used less often now because it connotes an unrealistic expectation that families can become blended into one; the terms "reconstituted" (Robinson, 1980) and "bi-nuclear" (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987) are awkward and have not become popularized. The literature shows a return to the term "step" because it clearly describes the family unit consisting of stepmothers, stepfathers, and stepsiblings. It makes sense to work toward changing the negative image of stepfamilies rather than the terminology we use to describe them. This article borrows Visher and Visher's (1988) definition of stepfamily as "a household in which there is an adult couple, at least one of whom has a child from a previous relationship" (p. 9). This definition is broad enough to include families that have custody of the children and those that do not; married and unmarried couples; opposite-sex and same-sex couples; families with one biological parent or two; and divorced, widowed, or not previously married families. Although these family types have differences among themselves, they also share some common differences from the traditional biologically based family upon which society has developed its norms and upon which many therapies are based.

Because of the prevalence of stepfamilies today, virtually all family-centered workers can expect these families in their case load. A decade ago, demographers Glick and Lin (1986) declared the stepfamily to be the fastest growing family form in the United States. Although the trend has slowed in recent years, divorce and remarriage are common life events in the United States (Norton & Miller, 1992), with 4 of 10 marriages involving a second or higher-order marriage for the bride, groom, or both (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 1991). In 1990, 5.3 million married-couple households contained at least one stepchild younger than age 18, representing 20.8% of all married-couple households with children, compared with 3.9 million such households (16.1%) in 1980 (Norton & Miller, 1992). When nonmarried couples with stepchildren are added to that total, the number of stepfamilies is considerable indeed.

The literature on stepfamilies has proliferated in recent years. As noted by Papernow (1993), social scientists have shifted their attention from the effect of divorce on the family (Ahrons, 1980; Bohannan, 1971; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980) to what happens when parents remarry, as 80% of men and 75% of women do (Furstenberg & Spanier, 1994). Although the body of literature on stepfamilies is growing, most of it has been theoretical (Dunn & Booth, 1994). Early studies were either anecdotal and problem-focused studies of stepfamilies in therapy or what Ganong and Coleman (1986) called the "deficit model" of study. In the deficit model stepfamily functioning was compared on several variables with functioning of biologically based families, and the differences were viewed as negative.

Recent research on stepfamilies has taken into account the complexity of and differences among stepfamilies and has utilized more sophisticated methodology than did earlier studies. For example, studies by Hetherington (1993), Hetherington and Clingempeel (1992), and Reiss et al., (1994) were all longitudinal studies using an ecological, developmental, family-system framework to study remarried families. Their studies involved using both male and female children and used nondivorced families in comparison groups. These researchers found, as have others (Amato & Keith, 1991; Ihinger-Tallman, 1988; Lawton & Sanders, 1994; Zill, 1988; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993), higher probabilities of behavioral, health, and education problems among children in stepfamilies. As pointed out by Dunn and Booth (1994), however, the effect size of many differences is small, and, as noted by Coleman (1994), the differences are marginal when socioeconomic factors such as lower education and early age at first marriage are accounted for. Stepfamilies are a diverse group, and families that divorce and remarry several times skew statistics and increase the likelihood of problematic adjustment for the children involved. In addition, problems attributed to stepfamilies may relate more to factors predating the stepfamily, such as parental strife and the divorce process.

As noted by Hetherington and Jodl (1994), most children "eventually adapt to life in a stepfamily and emerge as reasonably competent individuals" (p. 76), despite the challenges they faced. The first two years are usually the most difficult for the stepfamily (Kelley, 1992, 1995a), and therapeutic interventions at this time are most useful in helping the family to understand and accept its different structure and in interrupting problem sequences before they become intractable. Several books and articles have discussed therapy and counseling with stepfamilies (Hansen & Messinger, 1982; Kaufman, 1993; Lawton & Sanders, 1994; Martin & Martin, 1992; Sager et al., 1983; Visher & Visher, 1979; E. B. Visher, 1994; J. S. Visher, 1994). Although few of these studies are based on empirical research or controlled outcome studies, they agree in general on most points.

Issues Faced by Stepfamilies

Today, stepfamilies are generally recognized as different in form and function from biologically based families (Ganong & Coleman, 1986; Visher & Visher, 1988), and attempts to replicate the nuclear biologically based family create problems for stepfamilies (Mills, 1984; Sager et al., 1983; Visher & Visher, 1985, 1988). The recognition of and validation of these differences by the families and their support institutions, such as churches, schools, and extended families, is important for these families' well functioning (J. S. Visher, 1994), suggesting the need for public education on the subject. Although Zeppa and Norem (1993) found no differences in stress levels between first-order families and stepfamilies and cautioned that overstating the differences of stepfamilies could further marginalize them, it is helpful for stepfamilies to accept the differences that do occur as normal variants in a new and different family structure, not as a sign that they are "imperfect copies of nuclear families" (Visher & Visher, 1988, p. viii). Differences occur naturally in the following areas.

Structure

The structure of stepfamilies is so different from that of first-order families that McGoldrick and Carter (1988) suggested that we need a new paradigm of the family. Stepfamilies are built on loss, whether through death or divorce, and scars may be carried from members' experiences in the first family. In stepfamilies, the parent-child ties predate the marital-couple relationship, so the generational boundaries are not as clear. The adults may feel closer to their biological children than to their stepchildren, especially at first, a phenomenon that can be normalized as something to be expected. As a carryover from being a single-parent family, the parent-child tie in stepfamilies may be closer than in firstorder families, which can be viewed as a normal developmental stage and not pathologized as a sign of enmeshment. The boundaries need to be more permeable in stepfamilies, because membership is not as clear as it is in first-order families.

Movement between two households, as well as new sets of grandparents and other relatives, requires stepfamilies to become flexible and permeable. As noted by McGoldrick and Carter (1988), life-cycle differences in the couples are more common in stepfamilies, with one spouse settling in with older children and the other spouse with preschoolers. A stepfamily cannot begin as an integrated and blended single unit. It is a complex mix of several units, and integration is a slow and developmental process (Papernow, 1993). In fact, total integration rarely occurs.

Roles

Just as boundaries and membership are more ambiguous in stepfamilies, so are role definitions. Society has not carved out clear rules regarding the roles of stepparents or stepchildren. Without legal or biological ties, the stepparent may be unclear about his or her authority. Role strain has increased in most families as both parents take on more responsibilities and gender roles are less clearly defined. This strain is increased in stepfamilies because the role of stepparent involves loss and gain of roles (Visher & Visher, 1979) and because parental roles are less clear (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987). Whitsett and Land (1992) found increased role strain among stepparents, especially stepmothers. They explained this phenomenon by the fact that women are still expected to be nurturers and caretakers, even when they have neither the authority to do so nor the parent-child closeness to succeed. They note that the lack of self-role congruence may cause decreased self-esteem, which paradoxically increases role strain. The importance of the stepparent not trying to replace the biological parent has been stressed by many (Kelley, 1995a; Martin & Martin, 1992; Papernow, 1993; Visher & Visher, 1988), as has the need for role flexibility.

Gender Differences

Division of labor by gender is directly related to role flexibility. Traditionally, the role of breadwinner has been held by men and the role of caretaker by women. Although many families do not adhere to these rigid role divisions, such divisions, when they are evident, can be especially maladaptive in stepfamilies. As McGoldrick and Carter (1988) note, these patterns have "no chance at all in a system where the children are strangers to the wife and where the finances include sources of income and expenditures that are not in the husband's power to generate or control" (p. 400). It is usually recommended that the biological parents remain in charge of their children's discipline and financing, especially at first and sometimes forever (Kelley, 1995a). Such a plan means that both adults in the household earn money and nurture children, and it often involves one parent providing money for support and the other parent receiving child support.

Loyalty

Children, almost universally, will feel loyalty to their biological parents and may feel guilty if they begin to love and develop loyalty to their stepparents. Loyalty conflicts often arise when children are caught in disagreements between their parents or between parents and stepparents. McGoldrick and Carter (1988) recommend allowing children to express positive and negative feelings about parents and stepparents. It is helpful for children to know that it is possible to love many people without detracting from preexisting love relationships and for adults to explore new roles and relationships with stepchildren. If children are asked to call the stepparents "mother" or "father," loyalty conflicts may be exacerbated (Kelley, 1995a; Visher & Visher, 1988).

Intergenerational Connections

Considerable evidence suggests that children adjust better to divorce if they maintain relationships with significant others, including both parents and other relatives such as grandparents (Ahrons, 1981; Kennedy & Kennedy, 1993; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). The importance of one-on-one relationships between children and their biological parents has been stressed (Kelley, 1995a; Visher & Visher, 1988). The sense of loss and loyalty conflicts can be diminished by allowing children to maintain these special times, even if scheduling is a problem.

Communication Patterns

Communication is especially important in stepfamilies because these families have more relationships to manage. The merging of two families with different habits and patterns of communication can create misunderstandings. In therapeutic work with these families, it is helpful to have the family members confirm the accuracy of what they think was said. Family meetings and written rules and expectations regarding who does what around the house and regarding visitation rules also help to keep communications clear. Children need privacy and telephone time to talk with noncustodial parents and other relatives. Initially, more communication occurs among biological family members than among newer family members, a phenomenon that can also be normalized. Expectations of instant love among steprelatives should be challenged as an unrealistic goal. Love is more likely to develop when it is not mandated. Mutual respect, however, should be stressed.

Other Issues

Other issues faced by stepfamilies include the need for privacy and space, especially among new stepsiblings. At a time when children need more time alone to work out their issues regarding loss and change, they are often put in more crowded conditions to accommodate two sets of children. If some of the children are occasional visitors, this may work out, but if the household is the primary or part-time residence for two sets of children, privacy issues need to be worked out. Privacy is also important because sexual tensions may occur in a stepfamily as a result of a decrease in the incest taboo (Robinson, 1984).

Children who move back and forth between households may feel that they do not belong in either place. Having space of their own, even if a separate bedroom is not available, is helpful for children (Kelley, 1995a), and a clear set of rules and expectations regarding privacy issues helps set parameters. Because the new family unit does not have a shared history together, the establishment of some new family traditions may help members in the developmental process. The inclusion of parttime members is important. Even the language used sets the tone for inclusion or exclusion. As one 10-year-old boy noted, "I don't visit my mother in the summer; I live with my mother in the summer" (Kelley, 1995a, p. 66).

Theoretical Considerations Systemic and Ecological Approaches

The systemic and ecological approaches used by many family-centered practitioners are generally useful for stepfamily work, although some modifications are needed. The structural (Minuchin, 1974) and eco-structural (Aponte, 1991) approaches to family-based practice focus on interpersonal and sociocultural factors more than on intrapsychic causes for explaining problems. A contextual view of problem formation, rather than the assumption of underlying pathology of the family members, is an appropriate theoretical base for family-centered practice. Problems are seen as resulting from interactions between people, between people and social forces, or in reaction to a maladaptive family structure. Such a view is useful with stepfamilies because their different structures are not understood or accepted by their socialsupport institutions, including schools, churches, and extended families. Other systems' concepts useful in stepfamily work include Minuchin's (1974) emphasis on searching for strengths, the strategic view of problems being embedded in a behavioral sequence that can be interrupted (Haley, 1976), and the life-cycle view of families (Carter & McGoldrick, 1988), which conceptualizes problems as developing in relation to life-cycle transitions or to social stressors occurring at a particular point in time. Certainly, divorce or death and remarriage are major life-cycle transitions and stressors that can create problematic sequences. The parsimonious and problem-solving approaches of the systemic schools help stepfamilies move forward in their development.

Some problematic aspects of the systems approaches are lack of attention to meaning or to history, except in the life-cycle view. In stepfamilies, the histories of the families of origin of all parents and stepparents and of the first marriages, and the meaning attributed to those experiences, affect the current family system. These issues need to be addressed with stepfamilies, not necessarily as causal but as part of the context. In addition, the idea that a proper family structure needs defined boundaries and hierarchies (Minuchin, 1974) is not useful with stepfamilies. As noted already, cross-generational alliances and more permeable boundaries are often evident in stepfamilies. To pathologize these differences adds to the problem.

Behavioral Theory

Other family-centered practitioners have relied more on behavioral theory for guidance, which has useful aspects, too. The behavioral view of problems as learned behaviors that can be unlearned, like the systemic view, does not assume psychopathology of the individuals. This theory takes interactional patterns into account but places less emphasis on social context than does systemic theory. Lawton and Sanders (1994) surveyed the stepfamily literature, including assessing nine outcome studies of treatment, and found behavioral strategies to be effective. They developed a treatment model based on the findings of the studies that included the following behavioral interventions: education about the nature of the presenting problem, child-management training, problem-solving and communication training, parent-support training, planned-activity training, and supplementary interventions to address specific skill deficits. Although these interventions may be useful in stepfamily situations, they focus little attention on meaning and loss. In addition, too much emphasis on training may give parents the message that they are incompetent. Focus on education is important in stepfamily work, however (Brady & Ambler, 1982; Papernow, 1993; Visher & Visher, 1988). The amount and kind of education needs to be tailored for each family and combined with other therapeutic endeavors.

Narrative Approach

A narrative approach (White & Epston, 1990) also offers useful considerations for work with stepfamilies. This approach is based on postmodern theory, which focuses on meaning and on how people construct their life stories and views of reality based on interactions with other people and with societal institutions. In this approach, the clinician listens carefully to clients' stories because their views of reality are embedded within their stories. The therapeutic process consists of client-clinician dialogue in which new realities are developed. While the clinician carefully attends to and respects problem stories, he or she listens for other aspects of the story that are also true and that may have been lost in the clients' overemphasis of family problems (Kelley, in press). Negative experiences are not denied, but the meanings attached to them are explored, and the power given the experiences is challenged. The clinician engages the client to assess the themes, dominant characters, meanings, and historical context of his or her life stories, helping the client analyze the reciprocal influences. Strengths are mobilized to fight the effects of the problems as clients find alternative stories, which are also true. Narrative work can be very useful for stepfamilies, because stories of loss and change are expressed, differing views of reality are voiced, and existing strengths are mobilized.

Implications for Practice

The following practice model is designed for stepfamilies, integrating aspects of eco-systemic, behavioral, and narrative approaches. Although these approaches are built on different theoretical principles and cannot be merely added on to one another, some integration is possible if care is taken to attend to underlying differences (Kelley, 1994, 1995b). The stages of this integrated model are presented below. An underlying principle throughout the stages is the understanding of stepfamily functioning bv the clinician.

Problem Identification

It's important to obtain clear statements from all family members regarding their views of the problem or issue. Then differences and similarities in perceptions can be discussed. Although this guideline is taken from strategic therapy (Haley, 1976), it is also consistent with the postmodern, strength-oriented approaches. Solution-focused therapists (de Shazer, 1991; Berg & DeJong, 1996), for example, ask clients to envision what it would be like without the problem, to think about when that is already happening, and to build on those positive times. White and Epston (1990) help clients externalize the problem, to view it as not intrinsic to the person or family, and to mobilize their existing strengths to fight the effects of the problem. They also help clients isolate "unique outcomes" to the problem's domination over their lives, highlighting existing strengths. White and Epston also trace the history of the problem across time and help the family assess when and how the problem has assumed power in the family's life. This historicizing is important for stepfamilies, who bring differing histories into one unit.

Hearing the Stories

Although all clinicians listen to clients' stories, this technique is especially emphasized in narrative approaches. In a stepfamily, each member, whether full time or part time, needs to be "given voice" so that multiple realities can be recognized. If a newly married couple is happy, they may assume that their children are too, which is not necessarily true. Structural therapy holds the notion that a strong parental coalition ensures the well-being of children. But this does not hold true for stepfamilies (Hetherington & Jodl, 1994). Parents need to hear the concerns and fears of the children, and children need to hear the ideas and concerns of the parents. The process helps establish empathy, understanding, and respect among new family members-stepparents, stepsiblings, and stepchildren.

Drawing Genograms

Carter and McGoldrick (1988) discussed the usefulness of drawing a family map to show connections, structure, and patterns over generations. This technique is especially useful in helping stepfamilies see the complexity of their unit and to note life-cycle issues and discrepancies, for children literally to see their divided loyalties on paper, and for family members to assess who is close to whom and who is left out. Strong relationships as well as problematic ones can be noted, and relationships with extended family and support institutions can be drawn. The addition of an eco-map (Hartman & Laird, 1983) may be useful in highlighting the relationships external to the family. These drawings contextualize problems facing the family as well as identify sources of support and strength. Although White and Epston (1990) do not discuss their use, genograms fit nicely into narrative work because the drawings generate stories of relationships.

Education

The importance of education about family differences has been stressed in the literature (Papernow, 1993; J. S. Visher, 1994; Visher & Visher, 1988). Because stepfamilies are built on loss, adults especially wish to ensure that the new family is successful. The model of the ideal family in our society, and even in some therapeutic literature, is a tight unit with clear boundaries regarding who is in and who is outside the family unit, with more energy focused within than across generations, with both parents loving each child in the unit equally, with parents agreeing on and taking equal responsibility for disciplinary tasks, and with money and other resources pooled for equal sharing among members. Stepfamilies striving to fit into this ideal family type may feel they have failed, which exacerbates problems. The understanding and acceptance of differing norms and the realization that being different does not in itself constitute a problem are important.

Education on discipline issues is especially important because stepparents often take on the role of disciplinarian too quickly, setting themselves up for failure. One cannot control children who refuse to be controlled, and feelings of failure may cause the stepparent to try harder and fail more, decreasing self-esteem and interfering with relationship building. The family-centered worker can help the family find ways for the biological parent to stay in charge of his or her offsprings' behavior, freeing the stepparent to develop a friendlier relationship with the children. Although stepparents need a measure of authority in the house, they often feel relieved to have the main responsibility for discipline lifted. How this works is different for each family, but discussion of the rules and lines of authority and the development of a new plan can be conducted in sessions. Educating the family about the importance of allowing one-on-one times between parents and children and for the couple, as well as group time for the new unit to develop its own traditions, is recommended (Visher & Visher, 1988).

Exploring Alternatives

Exploring alternatives with the family usually works better than offering specific advice. For example, with regard to money, the family may need to have separate accounts to handle child support coming in and going out. In other families, pooling monies may work well (Kelley, 1995a). When parents are feuding over custody, support, or visitation, care must be taken to prevent the child from being caught in the middle. How such issues are resolved, however, is different for each family. Although the practitioner may offer suggestions on issues such as money, discipline, privacy and space, or visitations, such suggestions should be considered as alternatives to explore.

Designing Specific Interventions

In many instances, having family members tell and hear one another's stories, mobilizing their strengths by noting exceptions or unique outcomes, and educating members about unrealistic expectations and differences in stepfamilies are enough for families to move forward on their own. Other situations, however, may require additional interventions tailored around their individual family needs. Thus, after these initial steps, the families may find behavioral interventions useful: contracts with reward structures, goal setting, family meetings, and parent-education groups (Lawton & Sanders, 1994). In addition, individual work with a child or with the parental couple may be called for in some situations. Eco-systemic work of drawing upon other agencies, schools, or extended families may also be useful.

Case Examples

In an interview for a stepfamily study (Kelley, 1995a), one couple discussed previous therapy whereby an educational approach combined with understanding each other's views had been helpful. In their situation, both adults brought adolescent boys into the home-her son on a full-time basis and his son on an every other week basis. The wife in the family said that she had tried to make the family into a "picture postcard" family and when that did not work she became frustrated, which made the situation worse. She had expected her new stepson to confide in her about his problems, friends, and schoolwork, as did her own son. When he did not turn to her in that way, which made sense in that he lived with his mother half time, she interpreted his recalcitrance as a sign of rejection and disrespect. Understanding and accepting their need to function differently helped this family to divide the money and disciplinary chores, which the parents felt saved their marriage.

In a situation from the author's case load, a more comprehensive approach was helpful. Education aspects were not as important here because the family was not newly formed. The couple had been married eight years and had a biological child together. She had one child from a previous marriage; the marriage was a first marriage for him. They presented with a problem seen in many family types: a first child entering adolescence and requiring a new way of being a family. However, the stepfamily aspect added a few other considerations. R had always been very close to her mother. She was a "good girl" with appropriate friends and good grades. At age 14, she developed her first romantic relationship, unfortunately with an older boy who was part of a crowd that engaged in illegal and dangerous activities. She began to associate with his group, giving up her former friends. Her grades dropped, and she began actively rebelling for the first time in her life. Her stepfather laid down the law because he was concerned about her and about her effect on the seven-year-old daughter (his only biological child). He acknowledged that he was a "law and order" man who could not put up with such disobedience.

The stepfamily relationship complicated the situation because R said she did not have to follow his rules because he was "not her father." The situation was further complicated because the close mother-daughter tie had caused the husband to feel left out, exacerbating his need to assert his authority. It is possible, also, that the girl's emergence into adolescence created sexual tension in the home. On the other hand, being a stepfamily brought an additional resource not found in many families-a biological father who lived in another state.

The first step in treatment was to interrupt the problem sequence. R's biological father was also alarmed by R's behavior and agreed that R would visit him for two weeks, combining spring vacation with one week of missing school. This plan got her away from the boy's influence and demonstrated that all four parents were united regarding her care. In addition, it helped R see that her assessment of the boy had not been a good one; he found another girl friend in her absence.

After R returned home, a family session allowed all members to tell their stories and express their feelings. R expressed her frustration at being held back from becoming an adolescent by living in a family designed for little girls. She felt that her parents did not recognize that she was growing up and needed more privacy, time alone, and decision-making responsibility. Her mother expressed terror regarding the trouble R might have gotten herself into if she had continued her relationship and rebellious behavior. The mother also mourned the loss of her very close relationship with R. She also felt torn between her husband and her daughter. Her husband believed she had been too lenient with R, and R believed the stepfather had been too strict. The stepfather, on the other hand, was feeling pushed out of his family and was concerned about R and his younger daughter. Adolescence was externalized as a new force entering their lives. They discussed ways to welcome this change, making it a positive force instead of a disruptive one.

Having heard one another's stories helped the family members to feel empathy and understanding for the others' positions, which allowed for compromise. They reached the following agreements: The mother would handle most of the discipline of R, but the father would have equal say in family meetings where rules were made; the mother would be stricter with R when called for, and the father would serve as her backup and consultant; both parents acknowledged that R had reached an age whereby increased freedom and decision making were appropriate; and as R demonstrated better judgment new freedoms would be earned. Behavioral agreements were worked out, contracts for earned freedom were developed, and acceptable behaviors and curfew hours were specified. By the end of the school year, R had attended her first prom with a boy her own age, and things were going better at home. Continual contact with the biological father reinforced the plan.

Conclusion

Because stepfamilies are different in form and function, we need to find new ways to work with them. The traditional family-centered approaches-both eco-systemic and behavioral-are generally useful with this population, but they also present some problems and modification is needed. In this article the usefulness of incorporating the newer narrative approaches into the family-centered approaches was explored.

The narrative approaches seem helpful for stepfamilies because they emphasize meaning construction and explore the differing views of reality among family members. In stepfamilies especially, members view events from differing perspectives and attribute different meanings to those events. Other useful aspects of narrative therapy include the externalizing of problems so they are not seen as intrinsic to the family or its individual members and the mobilization of strengths.

In sum, eco-systemic approaches are blended with educational and narrative approaches in the integrated model presented here. This approach was developed specifically for work with stepfamilies.

REFERENCES

Ahrons, C. R. (1980). Divorce: A crisis of family transition and change. Family Relations. 29, 533-540.

Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 315-328.

Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Divorced families. New York: W. W. Norton.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110( 1), 26-46.

Aponte, H. J. (1991). Training on the person of the therapist for work with the poor and minorities. In K. G. Lewis (Ed.), Family systems application to social work: Training and clinical practice (pp. 23-39). New York: Haworth.

Berg, I. K., & DeJong, P. (1996). Solution-building conversations: Co-constructing a sense of competence. Families in Society, 77, 376-391.

Bohannan, P. (1971). Divorce and after. New York: Doubleday.

Brady, C. A., & Ambler, J. (1982). Use of group educational techniques with remarried couples. Fami ly Therapy Collections, 2, 145-157.

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (1988). Overview: The changing family life cycle-a framework for fami

ly therapy. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 3-30). New York: Gardner Press.

Coleman, M. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: Challenging biased assumptions. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 29-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting differences to work. New York: W W Norton.

Dunn, J., & Booth, A. (1994). Stepfamilies: An overview. In A Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 217-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Spanier, G. B. (1994). Recycling the family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1986). A comparison of clinical and empirical literature on children in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 309-318.

Glick, P. C., & Lin, S. L. (1986). Recent changes in divorce and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,737-747.

Haley, J. (1976). Problem solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hansen, J. C., & Messinger, L. (1982). Therapy with remarriage families. Rockville, MD: Aspen System Corporation.

Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work practice. New York: Free Press.

Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage: A focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39-56.

Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family system perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No. 227).

Hetherington, E. M., & Jodl, K. M. (1994). Stepfamilies as settings for child development. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 55-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1988). Research on stepfamilies. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 25-48.

Kaufman, T. S. (1993). The combined family: A guide to creating successful step-relationships. New York: Insight Books.

Kelley, P. (1992). Healthy stepfamily functioning. Families in Society, 73, 579-587.

Kelley, P. (1994). Integrating systemic and postsystemic approaches to social work practice with refugee families. Families in Society, 75, 541-549.

Kelley, P. (1995a). Developing healthy stepfamilies: Twenty families tell their stories. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Kelley, P. (1995b). Integrating narrative approaches into clinical curriculum: Addressing diversity through understanding. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 347-357.

Kelley, P. (1996). Narrative theory and social work treatment. In F J. Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical perspectives (4th ed., pp. 461-479). New York: Free Press.

Kennedy, G. E., & Kennedy, C. E. (1993). Grandparents: A special resource for children in stepfamilies. In C. A. Everett (Ed.), The stepfamily puzzle (pp. 45-68). New York: Haworth.

Lawton, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (1994). Designing effective behavioral family interventions for stepfamilies. Clinical Psychology Review, 5, 463-496.

Martin, D., & Martin, M. (1992). Stepfamilies in therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (1988). Forming a remarried family. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 399429). New York: Gardner Press.

Mills, D. M. (1984). A model for stepfamily development. Family Relations, 33, 365-372.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Norton, A. J., & Miller, L. E (1992). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the 1990s. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 180. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Papernow, P. (1993). Becoming a stepfamily. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Poppen, W. A., & White, P. N. (1984). Transition to the blended family. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 19, 50-61.

Reiss, D., Plomin, R., Hetherington, E. M., Howe, G., Rovine, M., Tryron, A., & Stanley-Hagen, M. (1994). The separate worlds of teenage siblings: An introduction to the study of the non-shared environment and adolescent development. In E. M. Hetherington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Nonshared environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robinson, B. E. (1984). A contemporary American stepfather. Family Relations, 33, 381-388.

Robinson, M. (1980). Stepfamilies: A reconstituted family system. Journal of Family Therapy, 2(2), 45-69.

Sager, C. J., Brown, H. S., Crohn, H., Engel, T., Rodstein, E., & Walker, L. (1983). Treating the remarried family. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. (1991). Advance report of final marriage statistics, 1988. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 40(4, Supplement), DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91-1120.

Visher, E. B. (1994). Lessons from remarriage families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 327-336.

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to working with stepparents and stepchildren. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1985). Stepfamilies are different. Journal of Family Therapy, 7(1), 9-18.

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1988). Old loyalties, new ties: Therapeutic strategies with stepfamilies. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Visher, J. S. (1994). Stepfamilies: A work in progress. American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 337-344.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the break up: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W. W. Norton.

Whitsett, D., & Land, H. (1992). Role strain, coping, and marital satisfaction of stepparents. Families in Society, 73, 79-92.

Zeppa, A., & Norem, R. H. (1993). Stressors, manifestations of stress and first-family/stepfamily group membership. In C. A. Everett (Ed.), The stepfamily puzzle (pp. 3-23). New York: Haworth.

Zill, N. (1988). Behavior, achievement, and health problems among children in stepfamilies: Findings from a national survey of child health. In E. M. Hetherington & J. D. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 325-368). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Longterm effects of parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(6), 1-13.

Patricia Kelley is Director and Professor, School of Social Work, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Copyright Family Service America Nov 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved