Copyright Information (bibliographic)

Document Type: Book Chapter

Title of book: Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

Author of book: Joshua M. Gold

Chapter Title: Chapter 1 Introduction: What We Know About Stepfamilies

Author of Chapter: Joshua M. Gold

Year: 2016

Publisher: American Counseling Association

Place of Publishing: United States of America

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use that user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Introduction: What We Know About Stepfamilies

Stepfamily constellations represent a growing societal trend (Lewis & Kre­ ider, 2015; McGoldrick & Carter, 2011), and clinicians are almost guaranteed to work with stepfamily dynamics during the course of their careers. This book will draw on what is known about African American, Latino, gay, and lesbian stepfamilies in order to explore issues of cultural diversity within this specific context.

Two terms are used to describe the family constellation and its attendant dynamics that are the focus of this book. To my mind, stepfamily refers to a family system in which one of the spouses has previous children, and blended family denotes families in which both spouses have children from prior unions. In both instance, the number of external prior and evolving relationships remain the same. Within the family unit, the term stepchild is used to distinguish the child to whom one spouse is not the biological parent, while the generic term child refers to a spouse’s biological offspring.

This chapter will provide demographic data on stepfamilies in the United States, followed by a description of common social myths about stepfamilies and comments from stepfamily members about their lives. Each dominant social myth is deconstructed to illustrate that applica­ tion of narrative therapy to these popular notions regarding stepfamily life. Subsequent chapters explore myths about specific roles within the stepfamily system.

Stepfamily Demographic Data A stepfamily is defined as a household in which two adults are in a commit­ ted couple relationship and where at least one of the adults has a child or

l

Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

children from a previous relationship. Those children may be in residence, be jointly parented, or have reached an age of majority and left the family home. An estimated 9,100 new American stepfamilies are created each week. Fifty percent of all Americans have a step connection (Stewart, 2007). It is predicted that the stepfamily constellation will be the most common family form in the United States by 2020 (Visher & Visher, 2003).

The actual demographic data on stepfamilies seems more difficult to discern. Standard reporting systems, such as the U.S. Census, tend to underestimate the numbers of stepfamilies, because of either the lack of an agreed upon definition of what actually constitutes a stepfamily or budgetary constraints, resulting in the absence of marriage, divorce, and stepfamily reporting. Data collection may be confounded by living arrange­ ments that do not include formal marriage and multi-household families in which children move between two or more households (Crosbie-Burnett et al., 2005; Deal, 2014; Lewis & Kreider, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2011). Data collection that allows for such variation will provide researchers and clinicians with more accurate numbers of stepfamilies.

The emergence of stepfamilies in ever-growing numbers challenges family counselors to replace the “nuclear family” norm with more current exemplars of family dynamics relevant to, and stemming from, the step­ family experience (Felker, Fromme, Arnaut, & Stoll, 2002; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2002; Gosselin & David, 2007). Stepfamilies have always formed part of the family constellation of society; however, the recent growth of divorce rates and subsequent remarriages have expanded their numbers (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2002; Inhinger-Tallman & Cooney, 2005). Four recent U.S. presidents (Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) were members of stepfamilies.

An initial examination of the data describing the context of family diversity will serve to substantiate the numbers and growth of step­ families in America. Carter and McGoldrick (2005b) claimed that “more than 1h of Americans today have been, are now or will eventually be in one or more stepfamilies during their lives” (p. 417). According to Pew Research Center (2011) data and Lewis and Kreider (2015), more than 40% of adults have at least one steprelative in their family. While initially stepfamilies were formed when widows or widowers remarried, more recently divorced adults are remarrying and forming stepfamilies. In 2002, 55% of first marriages ended in divorce (Gately, Pike, & Murphy, 2006); more recent data lower that figure to about 50% if both legal di­ vorces and long-term separations are combined (Stanley, 2015), and a majority of those adults (65% of women and 70% of men) will remarry (Portrie & Hill, 2005; Wilkes & Fromme, 2002). Usually women remarry within 3-5 years and men remarry within 1-2 years of the dissolution of the previous relationship (Gately et al., 2006), and either one or both partners most often bring children to the new union (Mahoney, 2006). The result is that 33% of all Americans are in stepfamily relationships (Malia, 2005), including an estimated 10 million stepchildren under the age of 18 (Wilkes & Fromme, 2002).

2

Introduction

Some demographic statistics are relevant to understanding the stepfam­ ily numbers. Unless otherwise noted, the data are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2007), the most recent data available.

• About 35 million Americans in the U.S. are remarried. • An additional 36 million Americans are divorced or widowed (pos­

sibly finding themselves in a remarriage at some point). • About 46% of all marriages today are a remarriage for one or both

partners, and about 65% of remarriages involve children from the prior marriage and, thus, form stepfamilies.

• Approximately one third of all weddings in America today form stepfamilies (Deal, 2014).

• The divorce rate for remarried and stepfamily couples varies but is at least 60% (Falke & Larson, 2007).

• Second marriages (with or without children) have a 60% rate of divorce, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006); at least two thirds of stepfamily couples divorce and divorce occurs more quickly in stepfamilies than first marriages (Halford et al., 2007; Michaels, 2006)

• An estimated one third of children will live in a stepparent home before the age of 18 (Parker, 2007), and 50% will have a stepparent at some point in their lifetime (Deal, 2014; Stewart, 2007).

• An estimated 40% of women will live in a married or cohabiting stepfamily home at some point (Stewart, 2007).

These facts reveal the growing prevalence of stepfamilies in society as a whole (Lewis & Kreider, 2015).

Issues of Cultural Diversity and Stepfamily Demographics

As stated in the Preface, this book will discuss four culturally distinct groups of stepfamilies for which there is some research: Latino, African American, gay, and lesbian stepfamilies. (In this section only, gay and lesbian stepfamilies’ demographic data are reported together.) All of these groups are underes­ timated and underreported in the literature (Pew Research Center, 2011).

Latinos currently made up 12.5% of the total U.S. population, and that percentage will grow to 24.4% by 2050 (Reck, Bigginbotham, Skogrand, & Davis, 2012). It has been reported that 16% of Latino children are members of stepfamilies (Inhinger-Tallman & Cooney, 2005). Plunkett, Williams, Schock, and Sands (2007) identified Latino stepfamilies as the fastest grow­ ing family structure within the Latino population (p. 5). In addition, 38% of women between the ages of 18 and 36 gave birth while they were unmar­ ried, and they tend to view the current family system as a first marriage rather than as a stepfamily because there was no marriage to the father of the child/ren. In addition, divorce rates among Latinos mirror those rates of Caucasians, with a 52% divorce rate; 44% remarry within 4 years. In

3

Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

this population, repartnering seems more prevalent than does remarriage, removing these repartnered stepfamilies from any current categories used by formal census data collecting agencies.

Stewart (2007) decried “the few studies on racial and ethnic diversity” (p. 20), and Carey (2009) claimed that”an exhaustive review revealed an absence of the African American family in stepfamily research” (p. 2); a 2015 search of the literature suggests that nothing has been published in this area since Carey’s 2009 review. Among African American families, confusion regarding the number of stepfamilies is based on the incidences of nonmarital births and the number of cohabiting couples. Cutrona, Russell, Burzette, Wesner, and Bryant (2011) determined that 54% of cohabiting couples had residential children. However, cohabiting arrangements or common-law marriages are not counted as family units. Adler-Baeder, Russell, et al. (2010) found that, in 2006, 70.7% of children born to African American mothers were nonmarital births, so marriage would actually be a first marriage rather than remarriage. This practice then further confounds accurate definitions of stepfamilies among this group and raises questions about the accuracy of data collection.

Gay and lesbian stepfamilies are “virtually ignored in stepfamily research” (Lynch, 2000, p. 82) and are “absent from most estimates of stepfamilies” (Stewart, 2007, p. 20). However, as Fredriksen-Goldsen and Erera (2003) noted, “significant numbers of gay and lesbian families have claimed the rights to raise children and live as a family” (p. 172). Lacking “hard” data, Crosbie-Burnett et al. (2005) estimated that gay and lesbian families account for 30% of households in the United States with children under 18, numbering between 2 and 8 million, and that gay and lesbian couples are raising 3-14 million children, a number which may increase based on the dissolution rates of gay and lesbian relationships and on the greater numbers of gay and lesbian individuals having children. Claxton-Oldfield and O’Neil (2007) reported that 22% of households headed by lesbians had residential children, compared to 5% of gay couples. Stewart (2007) estimated that 1 out of 9 cohabiting couples is same-sex; in the 2000 U.S. Census Bu­ reau data, 33% of female same-sex households and 22% of male same-sex households include children. It is not known whether families where the child/ren predate the current relationship or whether the child/ren are a product of the current relationship would be categorized as a “stepfamily.”

The number of stepfamilies is expected to exceed the number of nuclear families in the United States in the near future (Felker et al., 2002). The U.S. Census Bureau figures published in 2000 are said to have underestimated the actual number of stepchildren; only one “householder” is identified for census purposes, and the children could be those of the spouse but are not counted, as those children may not be the biological children of the identified head of household. Therefore, while official censuses can­ not enumerate accurately the numbers of stepfamilies either in total or by specified culturally diverse groups, their numbers cannot be ignored (Michaels, 2006). Consequently, it is critical for family-focused mental health professionals to separate dominant social myths from reality where stepfamilies are concerned.

4

Introduction

Myths About Stepfamilies

Portrayals of stepfamilies in popular television shows such as the Brady Bunch and Eight is Enough of stepmothers in fairy tales such as Cinderella, Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, and of either overly strict or abusive stepfathers influence both the family members and mental health profes­ sionals into distinctly biased views of stepfamilies (Jones, 2003). A basis for building a strong stepfamily is an understanding of its realities as well as a debunking of its myths and honoring its strengths. Understanding the myths and realities helps stepfamily members, and mental health profes­ sionals, appreciate what is normal as a stepfamily develops, leading to more reasonable expectations for family life.

Five of the most common myths about stepfamilies are described in the sections that follow (Jones, 2003).

Myth #l: Stepfamily Blending Happens Quickly

There is a conception that the proximity of two previously unconnected family systems will manifest itself into instantaneous affection and become an instant family, much like those affections portrayed on popular televi­ sion, with the concurrent belief that the absence of such a transformation indicates pending failure for the new stepfamily. Given the incomplete institutionalization of stepfamily blending (Cherlin, 1978), caricatures found in popular media often suffice as actual exemplars. This dominant narrative also implies that the transition ought to be easily accomplished, with no relational setbacks along the way; disagreement on how to be a “stepfamily” or conflict as roles are negotiated and settled implies a weakness in the system or the poor selection of a partnerI new stepparent. The expectations that transition should be seamless sets couples up with unreasonable expectations.

Myth #2: A Stepfamily Is the Same as a First Marriage Family

An uninformed observer might believe that all families with two adults and one or more children are comparable and that the current marriage must represent the initial marriage for each partner, obviating postdivorce or marital dissolution tensions, relations with ex-spouses, or the complexity of coparenting. This belief is based on several assumptions: that the marital relationship is the priority, that parents have equal authority, that the marital relationship has had time to solidify prior to the arrival of children, that the parents share an equal history with each child, and that no other affective ties exist between children and other parental figures. These assumptions vastly overlook the complexity of stepfamily dynamics.

Myth #3: Children Whose Parents Divorce and Remarry Are Damaged Permanently

There can be no disputing the pain and anger caused by marital divorce, custody proceedings, and the upheaval of every aspect of one’s life for

5

Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

children of any age. Moreover, this upheaval is repeated with the introduc­ tion of a stepparent and perhaps stepsiblings. It is no wonder that loyalty conflicts and the uncertainty of stepfamily life take an emotional toll on children. This emotional toll may be expressed in inappropriate school behaviors, home conflicts, and social acting out. These easily recognizable “cries of distress” mislead others into thinking that the disruptiveness and trauma of this transition are normative and enduring. Moreover, it is easier to document those children struggling with this transition rather than those for whom the conversion to the stepfamily was an easier process.

Myth #4: Children Need to Withdraw From Their Nonresidential Parent to Bond With a Stepparent

Consistent with the legal perspective that a child can have only two parents, children are sometimes expected to relinquish any expectation of the divorced parent as active and involved and, equally traumatically, to replace that spouse with an individual with whom the child shares no family history and a negligible emotional connection. The myth is premised on the belief that continued contact and emotional attachment with the nonresidential parent will interfere with the transition to the new stepfamily. Just as one’s parent has “replaced” the divorced spouse with the new spouse, so too are children to “divorce” the parent who no longer resides in the family home and instead to replace that parent figure with the new stepparent.

Myth #5: Remarriages That Follow a Death Go More Smoothly Than Those That Occur After a Divorce

There is an assumption that the physical passing of a spouse/ parent equates to an emotional relinquishment of that relationship and that stepfamilies that form after a death will evolve easily because the new stepparent can fill the relational void. This belief is influenced in part by comparing the stepfamily formed when divorced adults remarry; the divorced spouse remains a “pres­ ent” parent, confounding the status of the new stepparent and generating loyalty conflicts between the children and the new parental holon.

Narratives: Stepfamily Members Describe Their Own Lives

The following comments are examples of the countless postings on Internet chat rooms.

Everyone has a compelling story to tell. Every single person within a stepfamily structure could break your heart with their side of things. I try to remember that in my own stepfamily life when I want to lash out because I’m hurt or angry or just grieving that I’m in a stepfamily at all at the same time that I’m happy I’m in one. It’s complicated. Our families are all complicated. But it’s so easy to get stuck in our own version of things. When I read angry, hurtful letters and comments on this site I see deep pain.

-Retrieved from http:/ /www.noonesthebitch.com (10/29/2012)

6

Introduction

To survive and have a successful marriage is no easy task. Stir in children from a previous marriage, ex-spouses, ex-in-laws, and the extra baggage from previous relationships and you will realize just how different the stepfamily is. Each of these ingredients can bring with it a whole set of problems themselves that need to be dealt with.

-Retrieved from http: I /www.hicow.com/ step family I marriage/ invisible-man-I.html (10/29 /2012)

As a step and bio Mom, I know that it is not uncommon for tension, compromise, and confusion to rule when the role of parent is shared between a step and biological parent. Some people still feel that step­ parents aren’t “real” parents, but our culture has no norms to suggest how they are different. And the less our roles are defined, the more unhappy we are as both parents and stepparents. Another role ambiguity is that society seems to expect acquired parents and children to instantly love each other in much the same way as biological parents and their children do. In reality, however, this is often just not so. A stepparent might feel a tremendous amount of guilt about his or her lack of positive feelings (or even the presence of negative feelings) toward the spouse’s children. As a stepparent, you might feel like an unbiased observer with a grudge because you’re an outsider and the very thing that’s making you “unbiased” is something you resent, biology. Stepchildren, as well, often don’t react to their parent’s new spouse as though he or she were the “real” parent. The irony of expecting instant “real” parent-child love is further complicated by the fact that stepparents are not gener­ ally expected to be “equal” in discipline or otherwise controlling their stepchildren. Another reason for a difficult stepparent-child relationship might be that your child does not want this marriage to work, and so, acts out with hostility. Commonly children harbor fantasies that their biological parents will reunite. If children had reservations about or strongly disapproved of your divorce, they may sabotage your new relationships in the hope that you will get back together. Children who want their natural parents to remarry may feel that sabotaging the new relationship will get them back together. Although all stepchildren and stepparents are to some degree uncomfortable with some aspect of their new family role, certain difficulties are more likely to affect stepmothers, and others are more common to stepfathers. As a stepparent, your best shot at happiness is to ignore the myths and negative images and to work to stay optimistic. Society also seems, on the one hand, to expect romantic, almost mythical loving relationships between stepmothers and children while, at the same time, portraying stepmothers as cruel, vain, selfish, competitive, and even abusive. -Retrieved from http:/ /becomingastepmom.wordpress.com (10/29 /2012)

Deconstructing the Myths

Narrative-theory clinicians believe that clients commonly “report a sense of helplessness and blame-filled descriptions of each member and the relation­ ships between them” (Williams & Kurtz, 2009, p. 182). It is the adherences to these problem-saturated descriptions, not the individuals involved,

7

Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

which constitute the focus of deconstruction. The process of deconstruction provides a critical analysis of texts to establish that the dominant narratives are simply that; one possible story or explanation for an event. When clients accept this, generating alternative explanations, founded in the client’s lived experience and clinician’s professional knowledge, becomes possible (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013; Nichols, 2011; Williams & Kurtz, 2009). Out of those thickened narratives, which replace the dominant social nar­ ratives, come new ways to foster a more realistic and empowering vision of shared stepfamily values and beliefs.

Deconstructing Myth #l: Stepfamily Blending Happens Quickly

It can take anywhere from 4 to 7 years for a stepfamily to blend successfully (Visher & Visher, 1996, 2003; Visher, Visher, & Pasley, 1997). One rule of thumb is that, for each child, the evolution process takes twice as long as the child’s chronological age at the time of the step family formation. Therefore, the process of stepfamily bonding, assuming all other dynamics are equal, will happen more quickly for younger children and more slowly the older the child; in fact, family bonding may never occur if the stepchildren are teens. As discussed in the next chapter, this process involves five distinct developmental stages, each of which must be completed successfully to meet the challenges of later stages.

When stepfamily members buy into the myth of “instant blending,” they may think that something is wrong with their family when it seems to take a long time for things to settle down. This may turn into self-blaming, lead­ ing one partner (usually the stepparent) to withdraw from the new family system. Questioning the system itself or one’s place within that system bodes poorly for its continuity. This dismay may be part of the reason for the greater rate of dissolution of second, and subsequent, marriages (about 65%) during the first 3 years. If one believes that the turmoil and stress of transition are permanent features of the relationship, stepparents may be tempted to give up on their new family prematurely.

Deconstructing Myth #2: A Stepfamily Is the Same as a First-Marriage Family

Stepfamily members may have a tendency to inappropriately compare their family to the “ideal” first-marriage families they know. The professional literature labels this tendency as a “deficiency comparison model” (Carter & McGoldrick, 2005a). In theory, a “deficit comparison” approach is based on appraisals between one normative experience and deviant experiences, with those experiences that do not match the normative model decried as inferior. However, the very real differences between stepfamilies and first­ marriage families should be seen not as deficiencies in the stepfamily but rather as expressions of its uniqueness. Stepfamily development is more complex and challenging than nuclear family development (see Chapter 2), and part of the complexity derives from the lack of societal institutionaliza­ tion for the roles and functioning in the stepfamily. (Social institutionalization

8

Introduction

refers to a set of common practices that seem to epitomize the way that different social groups tend to behave; Cherlin, 1978.) This notion can be compared to a floor plan for a home that allows for individual expression but adheres to commonly accepted practice in construction. This type of “family blueprint” does not yet exist for stepfamilies, which means that individuals often experience apprehension and wonder whether they are doing things “right.”

Deconstructing Myth #3: Children Whose Parents Divorce and Remarry Are Damaged Permanently

The assertion of “permanent dysfunction” among children of divorce and in stepfamilies seems to generalize a point-in-time evaluation of a child’s functioning without adequate reassessment over time. Clearly the initial period of stepfamily formation may be difficult, as individuals find that their roles and relationships are reconfigured with external family members, such as non-residential parents and grandparents. This instability may manifest itself in children’s school and social behaviors. However, this “acting out” is a symptom of the uncertainty of the stepfamily and will resolve itself over time with appropriate intervention to help the child/ren understand the stepfamily evolution and how to navigate a more complex relational web; extreme expressions of uncertainty and anger generally wane over time as the stepfamily system settles itself.

Nevertheless, about a third of children of divorce have long-term ad­ justment difficulties, usually as a function of continued conflict between the ex-spouses, not as a function of inclusion in the stepfamily. In these instances, children are “emotional victims” of the anger, resentment, and loyalty conflicts between their parents; the stepfamily processes and inte­ gration itself is not a factor. When divorced parents can construct effective coparenting relationships, their children adjust and are satisfied in their new families.

Deconstructing Myth #4: Children Need to Withdraw From Their Nonresidential Parent to Bond With a Stepparent

Divorce or spousal separation speaks to the dissolution of marital ties but states nothing about the dissolution of parent-child relationships. In the best of circumstances, continued contact between children and the absent biological parent affirms for the child the continued love, affection, and support of the absent parent. When children aren’t allowed contact with the nonresidential parent, they tend to have idealized fantasies about him or her. Left without occasional “reality checks,” children may develop expecta­ tions to which a stepparent can never fully measure up. Normally, the best situation for a child’s growth and development is continued contact with both biological parents after divorce. This suggestion flies in the face of legal statute, which firmly states that a child can only have two “parents.” However, this legal stipulation overlooks the emotional needs and reality of children in stepfamilies. In recognition of those needs, it is suggested

9

Stepping In, Stepping Out: Creating Stepfamily Rhythm

that stepfamily imaging include how the biological parents and stepparents can all contribute to meeting the emotional needs of all children involved, in a way that calls on the strengths of each stepfamily adult member and forms an overt commitment to set aside any lingering spousal animosity for the sake of the children.

Deconstructing Myth #5: Remarriages That Follow a Death Go More Smoothly Than Those That Occur After a Divorce

It can be simply asserted that remarriage is a complex reorganization of family affective ties, regardless of how the prior relationship ended. While home may be more peaceful following an acrimonious divorce, children may view the remarriage as a betrayal of the absent parent, for whom the children retain strong ties of history and affection, regardless of the par­ ent’s choice of a new partner. The separation of the roles of “husband” and “father,” one now passed and the other still active, remains a residue from the legal battles of the divorce, requiring present and absent spouses to resolve any lingering marital issues or, at least, to ensure that those issues do not contaminate ongoing coparenting. The issues also emerge in cases of a parent’s death. A parent who has died may also acquire a “halo,” or image of perfection that makes it very difficult for a stepparent to enter and integrate with the new family. The physical absence of the departed spouse cannot be confused with the children’s relinquishment of emotional attachments, some of which may grow even stronger in the absence of the deceased spouse as selective memory paints an idealized version of that parent. In addition, any attempt to convince the children that the new parent will “replace” the deceased parent will end poorly. Rather, the ap­ proach should be to augment rather than replace a parental role. Legally, children can only have two parents at any given time, but in their hearts, children can hold room for multiple parenting figures, each providing love, acceptance, and nurturance in unique ways.

This section has offered five examples of the deconstruction of popular dominant narratives about stepfamilies. If there is truth and guiding principle in the statement that “knowledge is power,” then this process of replac­ ing what society thinks with what the clinician knows and the stepfamily lives on a daily basis provides a counterbalance to the prevalent myths. While this transition needs to be translated into new interaction styles, the replacement of myths that foster confusion and hopelessness with more realistic and positive perspectives is a critical foundation.

Conclusion

The number of stepfamilies in society as a whole and among specified cul­ turally diverse populations is growing, and clinicians are likely to encounter them in their practices. Clinicians would do well to consider how best to make stepfamily relationships more satisfactory and perhaps to offset the rise in the dissolution rate of second and subsequent marriages. As McGold­ rick and Carter (2011, p. 317) advised, “the key that determines whether

10

Introduction

the issue is transitional or has permanent crippling impact is whether it is handled adequately within the. family system in spite of the general lack of social support offered by society.” Therefore, family empowerment and advocacy, based on the integration of professional knowledge and lived experience, is a critical step toward understanding the distinction between what society purports and what the professional literature reveals about stepfamilies.

Resources

Anonymous. (2011). A portrait ofstepfamilies. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:/ /www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/0l/13/ A presentation and analysis of emerging demographic trends in stepfamilies

Duncan, S. F. (n.d.). Recognizing stepfamily myths, realities, and strengths. Forever Families. Retrieved from https:/ /foreverfamilies.byu.edu/ Pages Is tepfamilies I Recognizing-Stepfamily-Myths,-Reali ties ,-and­ Strengths.aspx A listing of seven stepfamily myths and strengths

Lintermans, G. (2011). Replace stepfamily myths with realistic expectations. Retrieved from http:/ /stepfamilysolutions.blogspot.com/2011/07I replace-stepfamily-myths-with-realistic.html A self-report to normalize the complexity of stepfamily relationships

Stewart, S. D. (2006). Brave new stepfamilies. National Healthy Marriage Resource Center. Retrieved from www.healthymarriageinfo.org/ A presentation and analysis of emerging demographic trends in step families

11

1

Theory Into Practice: Four Social Work Case Studies In this course, you select one of the following four case studies and use it throughout the entire course. By doing this, you will have the opportunity to see how different theories guide your view of a client and that client’s presenting problem. Each time you return to the same case, you use a different theory, and your perspective of the problem changes—which then changes how you ask assessment questions and how you intervene. These case studies are based on the video- and web-based case studies you encounter in the MSW program.

Table of Contents Tiffani Bradley ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Paula Cortez ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Jake Levey …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Helen Petrakis ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

2

Tiffani Bradley Identifying Data: Tiffani Bradley is a 16-year-old Caucasian female. She was raised in

a Christian family in Philadelphia, PA. She is of German descent. Tiffani’s family consists of her father, Robert, 38 years old; her mother, Shondra, 33 years old, and her sister, Diana, 13 years old. Tiffani currently resides in a group home, Teens First, a brand new, court-mandated teen counseling program for adolescent victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. Tiffani has been provided room and board in the residential treatment facility for the past 3 months. Tiffani describes herself as heterosexual.

Presenting Problem: Tiffani has a history of running away. She has been arrested on

three occasions for prostitution in the last 2 years. Tiffani has recently been court ordered to reside in a group home with counseling. She has a continued desire to be reunited with her pimp, Donald. After 3 months at Teens First, Tiffani said that she had a strong desire to see her sister and her mother. She had not seen either of them in over 2 years and missed them very much. Tiffani is confused about the path to follow. She is not sure if she wants to return to her family and sibling or go back to Donald.

Family Dynamics: Tiffani indicates that her family worked well together until 8 years

ago. She reports that around the age of 8, she remembered being awakened by music and laughter in the early hours of the morning. When she went downstairs to investigate, she saw her parents and her Uncle Nate passing a pipe back and forth between them. She remembered asking them what they were doing and her mother saying, “adult things” and putting her back in bed. Tiffani remembers this happening on several occasions. Tiffani also recalls significant changes in the home’s appearance. The home, which was never fancy, was always neat and tidy. During this time, however, dust would gather around the house, dishes would pile up in the sink, dirt would remain on the floor, and clothes would go for long periods of time without being washed. Tiffani began cleaning her own clothes and making meals for herself and her sister. Often there was not enough food to feed everyone, and Tiffani and her sister would go to bed hungry. Tiffani believed she was responsible for helping her mom so that her mom did not get so overwhelmed. She thought that if she took care of the home and her sister, maybe that would help mom return to the person she was before.

Sometimes Tiffani and her sister would come downstairs in the morning to find empty beer cans and liquor bottles on the kitchen table along with a crack pipe. Her parents would be in the bedroom, and Tiffani and her sister would leave the house and go to school by themselves. The music and noise downstairs continued for the next 6 years, which escalated to screams and shouting and sounds of people fighting. Tiffani remembers her mom one morning yelling at her dad to “get up and go to work.” Tiffani and Diana saw their dad come out of the bedroom and slap their mom so hard she was knocked down. Dad then went back into the bedroom. Tiffani

3

remembers thinking that her mom was not doing what she was supposed to do in the house, which is what probably angered her dad.

Shondra and Robert have been separated for a little over a year and have started dating other people. Diana currently resides with her mother and Anthony, 31 years old, who is her mother’s new boyfriend.

Educational History: Tiffani attends school at the group home, taking general education classes for her general education development (GED) credential. Diana attends Town Middle School and is in the 8th grade.

Employment History: Tiffani reports that her father was employed as a welding

apprentice and was waiting for the opportunity to join the union. Eight years ago, he was laid off due to financial constraints at the company. He would pick up odd jobs for the next 8 years but never had steady work after that. Her mother works as a home health aide. Her work is part-time, and she has been unable to secure full-time work.

Social History: Over the past 2 years, Tiffani has had limited contact with her family

members and has not been attending school. Tiffani did contact her sister Diana a few times over the 2-year period and stated that she missed her very much. Tiffani views Donald as her “husband” (although they were never married) and her only friend. Previously, Donald sold Tiffani to a pimp, “John T.” Tiffani reports that she was very upset Donald did this and that she wants to be reunited with him, missing him very much. Tiffani indicates that she knows she can be a better “wife” to him. She has tried to make contact with him by sending messages through other people, as John T. did not allow her access to a phone. It appears that over the last 2 years, Tiffani has had neither outside support nor interactions with anyone beyond Donald, John T., and some other young women who were prostituting.

Mental Health History: On many occasions Tiffani recalls that when her mother was

not around, Uncle Nate would ask her to sit on his lap. Her father would sometimes ask her to show them the dance that she had learned at school. When she danced, her father and Nate would laugh and offer her pocket change. Sometimes, their friend Jimmy joined them. One night, Tiffani was awakened by her uncle Nate and his friend Jimmy. Her parents were apparently out, and they were the only adults in the home. They asked her if she wanted to come downstairs and show them the new dances she learned at school. Once downstairs Nate and Jimmy put some music on and started to dance. They asked Tiffani to start dancing with them, which she did. While they were dancing, Jimmy spilled some beer on her. Nate said she had to go to the bathroom to clean up. Nate, Jimmy, and Tiffani all went to the bathroom. Nate asked Tiffani to take her clothes off and get in the bath. Tiffani hesitated to do this, but Nate insisted it was OK since he and Jimmy were family. Tiffani eventually relented and began to wash up. Nate would tell her that she missed a spot and would scrub the area with his hands. Incidents like this continued to occur with increasing levels of molestation each time.

4

The last time it happened, when Tiffani was 14, she pretended to be willing to dance

for them, but when she got downstairs, she ran out the front door of the house. Tiffani vividly remembers the fear she felt the nights Nate and Jimmy touched her, and she was convinced they would have raped her if she stayed in the house.

About halfway down the block, a car stopped. The man introduced himself as Donald,

and he indicated that he would take care of her and keep her safe when these things happened. He then offered to be her boyfriend and took Tiffani to his apartment. Donald insisted Tiffani drink beer. When Tiffani was drunk, Donald began kissing her, and they had sex. Tiffani was also afraid that if she did not have sex, Donald would not let her stay— she had nowhere else to go. For the next 3 days, Donald brought her food and beer and had sex with her several more times. Donald told Tiffani that she was not allowed to do anything without his permission. This included watching TV, going to the bathroom, taking a shower, and eating and drinking. A few weeks later, Donald bought Tiffani a dress, explaining to her that she was going to “find a date” and get men to pay her to have sex. When Tiffani said she did not want to do that, Donald hit her several times. Donald explained that if she didn’t do it, he would get her sister Diana and make her do it instead. Out of fear for her sister, Tiffani relented and did what Donald told her to do. She thought at this point her only purpose in life was to be a sex object, listen, and obey—and then she would be able to keep the relationships and love she so desired.

Legal History: Tiffani has been arrested three times for prostitution. Right before the

most recent charge, a new state policy was enacted to protect youth 16 years and younger from prosecution and jail time for prostitution. The Safe Harbor for Exploited Children Act allows the state to define Tiffani as a sexually exploited youth, and therefore the state will not imprison her for prostitution. She was mandated to services at the Teens First agency, unlike her prior arrests when she had been sent to detention.

Alcohol and Drug Use History: Tiffani’s parents were social drinkers until about 8

years ago. At that time Uncle Nate introduced them to crack cocaine. Tiffani reports using alcohol when Donald wanted her to since she wanted to please him, and she thought this was the way she would be a good “wife.” She denies any other drug use.

Medical History: During intake, it was noted that Tiffani had multiple bruises and burn

marks on her legs and arms. She reported that Donald had slapped her when he felt she did not behave and that John T. burned her with cigarettes. She had realized that she did some things that would make them mad, and she tried her hardest to keep them pleased even though she did not want to be with John T. Tiffani has been treated for several sexually transmitted infections (STIs) at local clinics and is currently on an antibiotic for a kidney infection. Although she was given condoms by Donald and John T. for her “dates,” there were several “Johns” who refused to use them.

5

Strengths: Tiffani is resilient in learning how to survive the negative relationships she has been involved with. She has as sense of protection for her sister and will sacrifice herself to keep her sister safe.

Robert Bradley: father, 38 years old Shondra Bradley: mother, 33 years old Nate Bradley: uncle, 36 years old Tiffani Bradley: daughter, 16 years old Diana Bradley: daughter, 13 years old Donald: Tiffani’s self-described husband and her former pimp Anthony: Shondra’s live-in partner, 31 years old John T.: Tiffani’s most recent pimp

6

Paula Cortez

Identifying Data: Paula Cortez is a 43-year-old Catholic Hispanic female residing in New York City, NY. Paula was born in Colombia. When she was 17 years old, Paula left Colombia and moved to New York where she met David, who later became her husband. Paula and David have one son, Miguel, 20 years old. They divorced after 5 years of marriage. Paula has a five-year-old daughter, Maria, from a different relationship.

Presenting Problem: Paula has multiple medical issues, and there is concern about

whether she will be able to continue to care for her youngest child, Maria. Paula has been overwhelmed, especially since she again stopped taking her medication. Paula is also concerned about the wellness of Maria.

Family Dynamics: Paula comes from a moderately well-to-do family. Paula reports

suffering physical and emotional abuse at the hands of both her parents, eventually fleeing to New York to get away from the abuse. Paula comes from an authoritarian family where her role was to be “seen and not heard.” Paula states that she did not feel valued by any of her family members and reports never receiving the attention she needed. As a teenager, she realized she felt “not good enough” in her family system, which led to her leaving for New York and looking for “someone to love me.” Her parents still reside in Colombia with Paula’s two siblings.

Paula met David when she sought to purchase drugs. They married when Paula was 18 years old. The couple divorced after 5 years of marriage. Paula raised Miguel, mostly by herself, until he was 8 years old, at which time she was forced to relinquish custody due to her medical condition. Paula maintains a relationship with her son, Miguel, and her ex-husband, David. Miguel takes part in caring for his half-sister, Maria.

Paula does believe her job as a mother is to take care of Maria but is finding that more and more challenging with her physical illnesses.

Employment History: Paula worked for a clothing designer, but she realized that her true

passion was painting. She has a collection of more than 100 drawings and paintings, many of which track the course of her personal and emotional journey. Paula held a full- time job for a number of years before her health prevented her from working. She is now unemployed and receives Supplemental Security Disability Insurance (SSD) and Medicaid. Miguel does his best to help his mom but only works part time at a local supermarket delivering groceries.

Paula currently uses federal and state services. Paula successfully applied for WIC, the

federal Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Given Paula’s low income, health, and Medicaid status, Paula is able to receive in-home childcare assistance through New York’s public assistance program.

7

Social History: Paula is bilingual, fluent in both Spanish and English. Although Paula identifies as Catholic, she does not consider religion to be a big part of her life. Paula lives with her daughter in an apartment in Queens, NY. Paula is socially isolated as she has limited contact with her family in Colombia and lacks a peer network of any kind in her neighborhood.

Five (5) years ago Paula met a man (Jesus) at a flower shop. They spoke several times. He would visit her at her apartment to have sex. Since they had an active sex life, Paula thought he was a “stand-up guy” and really liked him. She believed he would take care of her. Soon everything changed. Paula began to suspect that he was using drugs, because he had started to become controlling and demanding. He showed up at her apartment at all times of the night demanding to be let in. He called her relentlessly, and when she did not pick up the phone, he left her mean and threatening messages. Paula was fearful for her safety and thought her past behavior with drugs and sex brought on bad relationships with men and that she did not deserve better. After a couple of months, Paula realized she was pregnant. Jesus stated he did not want anything to do with the “kid” and stopped coming over, but he continued to contact and threaten Paula by phone. Paula has no contact with Jesus at this point in time due to a restraining order.

Mental Health History: Paula was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She experiences

periods of mania lasting for a couple of weeks then goes into a depressive state for months when not properly medicated. Paula has a tendency toward paranoia. Paula has a history of not complying with her psychiatric medication treatment because she does not like the way it makes her feel. She often discontinues it without telling her psychiatrist. Paula has had multiple psychiatric hospitalizations but has remained out of the hospital for the past 5 years. Paula accepts her bipolar diagnosis but demonstrates limited insight into the relationship between her symptoms and her medication.

Paula reports that when she was pregnant, she was fearful for her safety due to the baby’s father’s anger about the pregnancy. Jesus’ relentless phone calls and voicemails rattled Paula. She believed she had nowhere to turn. At that time, she became scared, slept poorly, and her paranoia increased significantly. After completing a suicide assessment 5 years ago, it was noted that Paula was decompensating quickly and was at risk of harming herself and/or her baby. Paula was involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric unit of the hospital. Paula remained on the unit for 2 weeks.

Educational History: Paula completed high school in Colombia. Paula had hoped to

attend the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) in New York City, but getting divorced, then raising Miguel on her own interfered with her plans. Miguel attends college full time in New York City.

Medical History: Paula was diagnosed as HIV positive 15 years ago. Paula acquired

AIDS three years later when she was diagnosed with a severe brain infection and a T- cell count of less than 200. Paula’s brain infection left her completely paralyzed on the right side. She lost function in her right arm and hand as well as the ability to walk. After

8

a long stay in an acute care hospital in New York City, Paula was transferred to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) where she thought she would die. After being in the skilled nursing facility for more than a year, Paula regained the ability to walk, although she does so with a severe limp. She also regained some function in her right arm. Her right hand (her dominant hand) remains semi-paralyzed and limp. Over the course of several years, Paula taught herself to paint with her left hand and was able to return to her beloved art.

Paula began treatment for her HIV/AIDS with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Since she ran away from the family home, married and divorced a drug user, then was in an abusive relationship, Paula thought she deserved what she got in life. She responded well to HAART and her HIV/AIDS was well controlled. In addition to her HIV/AIDS disease, Paula is diagnosed with Hepatitis C (Hep C). While this condition was controlled, it has reached a point where Paula’s doctor is recommending she begin a new treatment. Paula also has significant circulatory problems, which cause her severe pain in her lower extremities. She uses prescribed narcotic pain medication to control her symptoms. Paula’s circulatory problems have also led to chronic ulcers on her feet that will not heal. Treatment for her foot ulcers demands frequent visits to a wound care clinic. Paula’s pain paired with the foot ulcers make it difficult for her to ambulate and leave her home. Paula has a tendency not to comply with her medical treatment. She often disregards instructions from her doctors and resorts to holistic treatments like treating her ulcers with chamomile tea. When she stops her treatment, she deteriorates quickly.

Maria was born HIV negative and received the appropriate HAART treatment after birth. She spent a week in the neonatal intensive care unit as she had to detox from the effects of the pain medication Paula took throughout her pregnancy.

Legal History: Previously, Paula used the AIDS Law Project, a not-for-profit organization

that helps individuals with HIV address legal issues, such as those related to the child’s father . At that time, Paula filed a police report in response to Jesus’ escalating threats and successfully got a restraining order. Once the order was served, the phone calls and visits stopped, and Paula regained a temporary sense of control over her life.

Paula completed the appropriate permanency planning paperwork with the assistance of the organization The Family Center. She named Miguel as her daughter’s guardian should something happen to her.

Alcohol and Drug Use History: Paula became an intravenous drug user (IVDU), using

cocaine and heroin, at age 17. David was one of Paula’s “drug buddies” and suppliers. Paula continued to use drugs in the United States for several years; however, she stopped when she got pregnant with Miguel. David continued to use drugs, which led to the failure of their marriage.

Strengths: Paula has shown her resilience over the years. She has artistic skills and has

found a way to utilize them. Paula has the foresight to seek social services to help her

9

and her children survive. Paula has no legal involvement. She has the ability to bounce back from her many physical and health challenges to continue to care for her child and maintain her household. David Cortez: father, 46 years old Paula Cortez: mother, 43 years old Miguel Cortez: son, 20 years old Jesus (unknown): Maria’s father, 44 years old Maria Cortez: daughter, 5 years old

10

Jake Levy Identifying Data: Jake Levy is a 31-year-old, married, Jewish Caucasian male. Jake’s

wife, Sheri, is 28 years old. They have two sons, Myles (10) and Levi (8). The family resides in a two-bedroom condominium in a middle-class neighborhood in Rockville, MD. They have been married for 10 years.

Presenting Problem: Jake, an Iraq War veteran, came to the Veterans Affairs Health

Care Center (VA) for services because his wife has threatened to leave him if he does not get help. She is particularly concerned about his drinking and lack of involvement in their sons’ lives. She told him his drinking has gotten out of control and is making him mean and distant. Jake reports that he and his wife have been fighting a lot and that he drinks to take the edge off and to help him sleep. Jake expresses fear of losing his job and his family if he does not get help. Jake identifies as the primary provider for his family and believes that this is his responsibility as a husband and father. Jake realizes he may be putting that in jeopardy because of his drinking. He says he has never seen Sheri so angry before, and he saw she was at her limit with him and his behaviors.