Issues Considered in Contemplating Stepchild AdoptionAuthor(s): Lawrence Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, Mark Fine, Annette Kusgen McDanielSource: Family Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 63-71Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584852Accessed: 09/02/2010 13:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toFamily Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

Issues Considered In Contemplating Stepchild Adoption Lawrence Ganong,* Marilyn Coleman, Mark Fine, and Annette Kusgen McDaniel

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the factors that stepfamily members consider when contemplating stepchild adoption. Thirty-two adults and 22 stepchildren from 16 stepfamilies were interviewed about their thoughts and feelings regard- ing stepparent adoption. The desire to be a "regular" family, to sever relationships with the nonresidential parent, and to legit- imize roles and relationships were reasons given for considering adoption. Whether or not family members thought about or dis- cussed stepchild adoption was related primarily to the level of involvement of the nonresidential parent. Implications for policies that may expand the range of options available to strengthen the stepparent-stepchild bond are discussed.

Stepfamily households, defined as households in which there is an adult couple, at least one of whom has a child from a previous relationship, are common in the United

States. In 1990, 11.3% of children in the United States lived with a parent and a stepparent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). A number of these stepchildren are eventually adopted by their stepparent; although the extent of stepparent adoption is not known, it has been estimated that 100,000 stepchildren are adopted by their stepparents every year (Levine & Sallee, 1990).

There are probably many similarities between stepchild adoptions by a stepparent and adoptions in which both adults adopt an unrelated child, especially when children are younger than preschool age at the time of adoption (Reitz & Watson, 1992). There are also similarities with older children in both types of adoption-children are confronted with modifying self- identities; they may experience loyalty conflicts between genetic and adopting parents; family members must learn new roles; the family boundaries must be redefined by its members; and adopt- ing parents must cope with identity changes (Daly, 1988; Kirk, 1981; Visher & Visher, 1996; Watson, 1996).

Despite the similarities, there are important contextual dif- ferences that make stepchild adoption worthy of study as a spe- cial type of adoption. For instance, in stepchild adoptions only the stepparent is seeking to change her or his legal status in rela- tion to the children (Mahoney, 1994), whereas in most other adoptions there are two adults seeking to adopt a child. In stepchild adoption the stepchild has an already existing relation- ship with one biological parent in the home, an emerging rela- tionship with another adult in the home (the stepparent), and pos- sibly an ongoing relationship with a nonresidential biological parent. By contrast, in adoption of unrelated children, the child does not have a pre-existing relationship with either of the adop- tive parents. Consequently, in stepchild adoptions the stepparent is the additional member of an already existing family unit, whereas in other adoptions the child is the newcomer. One possi- ble result of these structural differences is that issues such as openness in adoption, defined as the extent of direct and indirect contact between the adopted child and the birthparents (Kirk, 1981), may have different meanings in stepchild adoptions than in other types of adoptions.

In addition to these structural differences, it is likely that there are differences in the motivations to adopt between stepchild adoptions and other adoptions. For example, infertility is a primary reason why childless couples adopt (Daly, 1988; Kirk, 1964; 1981), but this is seldom the reason why stepparents adopt their stepchildren (Wolf & Mast, 1987). Consequently, the process of deciding to adopt is likely to differ, as are the factors that are considered when adoption is contemplated. For these rea-

sons, much of the literature on adoption of unrelated children is unlikely to generalize to stepchild adoption.

Process of Stepchild Adoption For a stepparent to be able to adopt, the nonresidential parent

must relinquish all legal ties to the child (Mahoney, 1994). The nonresidential parent can either voluntarily relinquish parental claims to the child, or the stepparent and residential parent can initiate legal proceedings to force the nonresidential parent to lose parental status. There are two general reasons why courts in- voluntarily sever the parental rights of a nonresidential parent: (a) the nonresidential parent is declared to be unfit for a variety of reasons, and/or (b) it is in the child's best interests to end the re- lationship (Mahoney, 1994). Traditionally, legal jurisdictions have used both of these reasons in a two-stage process of decid- ing whether or not to allow stepparent adoption. First, a judgment is made about the fitness of the nonresidential parent. There are a number of bases for determining if the nonresidential parent is unfit, including: (a) the parent has abandoned the child; (b) the parent has been abusive to the child; or (c) the parent is a sub- stance abuser. Once the nonresidential parent's rights to the child have been terminated, this clears the way for a decision regarding whether or not the adoption would be in the child's best interests. In recent years some courts have tried to simplify this two-stage process somewhat by using the child's best interests as the sole basis for allowing stepparent adoption in situations in which the nonresidential parent has not consented to terminate parental rights. However, even in jurisdictions in which the sole standard being used for stepparent adoption is the principle of the child's best interest, the fitness of the nonresidential parent continues to be a major part of the legal deliberations (Mahoney, 1994).

If they desire to adopt, the adults in the stepfamily have to make a case that stepparent adoption is in the best interests of the child, and often stepchildren are consulted by the judge before the adoption is allowed (Mahoney, 1994). Moreover, adoption may be costly to stepfamilies due to legal expenses and the loss of child support from the parent who yields parental rights. Clearly, adoption is not only a legal event, but it is a process that

*Address correspondence to: Lawrence Ganong, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, 31 Stanley Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 6521 1.

Key Words: adoption, stepchildren, stepparent.

(Family Relations, 1998, 47, 63-71.)

1998, Vol. 47, No. 1 63

involves emotional, psychological, financial, and interpersonal factors.

Prior Research on Stepchild Adoption

Unfortunately, although stepchild adoption is a relatively common occurrence and the contemplation of adoption in step- families is probably even more prevalent, it has rarely been re- searched (Reitz & Watson, 1992). Little is known about motives to adopt or issues and concerns that stepparents and parents con- template when considering stepparent adoption (Duran-Aydintug & Ihinger-Tallman, 1995). A survey of 55 adopting stepparents yielded some evidence regarding the motives underlying stepchild adoption (participates could identify more than one mo- tive); name changes (40%), family unity (31%), a good relation- ship between the stepparent and stepchild (27%), transferring legal rights to stepparents (23%), and severing ties from the non- residential parent (23%) were the main reasons given for stepchild adoption (Wolf & Mast, 1987).

Clinicians and legal scholars have speculated about issues related to stepchild adoption. For example, it has been argued that stepchild adoption may represent an attempt to demonstrate affection and commitment to the child, to create a parent-child bond that is legal as well as emotional (Visher & Visher, 1979). Also, adoption legally addresses some of the complications asso- ciated with stepfamily living (e.g., family members having differ- ent last names), presumably making life easier for stepfamily members (Mahoney, 1994).

In this study we take a social constructionist approach to un- derstanding considerations and motivations for stepchild adop- tion (Dallos, 1991). The socially constructed meanings of con- texts and relationships are of particular importance in understand- ing stepfamilies because stepfamily roles and relationships are often ambiguous and unclear (Ganong & Coleman, 1994) and be- cause step relationships are stigmatized (Ganong & Coleman, in press). Understanding the socially constructed views of individu- als within these relationships can help stepfamily members and practitioners who work with stepfamilies to better understand family members' behaviors and intentions.

It has long been pointed out by clinicians that stepfamily members, particularly remarried adults, often attempt to use the nuclear family as a model to emulate in constructing stepfamily life (Goldner, 1982; Visher & Visher, 1988; 1996). They do so partly because cultural models about how families are supposed to be are based on nuclear families (Coale Lewis, 1985) and part- ly because there is a lack of institutionalized guidelines and norms for stepfamily roles (Cherlin, 1978). Several clinical writ- ers have noted that stepparents are often unsure of how to relate to their stepchildren, an uncertainty that is shared by other step- family members and by outsiders who interact with stepfamilies (Mills, 1984; Papernow, 1993; Visher & Visher, 1988). Conse- quently, some stepfamily members base their views on how their families should function on their image of nuclear, first-marriage families. According to clinicians, such a model does not serve stepfamilies well because it does not provide much assistance in anticipating stepfamily problems and figuring out workable solu- tions to existing difficulties (Coale Lewis, 1985; Visher & Vish- er, 1988). However, from the stepfamily members' viewpoints, thinking of themselves as members of nuclear families allows them to use societal norms for parents and children as guidelines for their role enactments. Members of stepfamilies often try to

recreate the nuclear family because it is familiar and simpler than the reality of stepfamily complexity and ambiguity and because they are supported in this effort by extended family, friends, and society as a whole.

The lack of legal ties between stepparents and their stepchil- dren may also add to feelings of ambiguity and a sense of a lack of control for stepparents. Moreover, clinicians and social scien- tists who examine legal issues contend that the absence of a legal relationship potentially serves as a barrier to the development of emotionally close stepparent-stepchild bonds (Fine, 1989; Visher & Visher, 1988). If this is so, then adoption may be seen as a way to reduce ambiguity and remove an impediment (i.e., the lack of a legal relationship) to closer ties.

Social stigma may also be a factor in the social construction of stepfamily life. The cultural meanings associated with step- family roles may not be ones that contribute to positive self- identities; for instance, the prefix step has negative connotations for many (Coleman & Ganong, 1987; Fine, 1986), so individuals who are in stepfamilies may be motivated to avoid the use of step labels and terms that denote stepfamily positions (Coleman & Ganong, 1987), and they may want to use nuclear family terms for each other (e.g., mother instead of stepmother) as an impres- sion management strategy (Dainton, 1993; Kaplan & Hennon, 1992). If stepfamilies and stepfamily positions (e.g., stepmother, stepchild) are seen by family members as stigmatized social cate- gories associated with generally negative attributes (Ganong, Coleman, & Mapes, 1990), then this serves as additional motiva- tion to pattern their stepfamily as closely as possible after the nu- clear family model.

Adoption may be seen by stepfamily members as one way to accomplish the goals of normalizing stepfamily roles and "be- coming" a nuclear family: the noncustodial parent loses parental rights and responsibilities, and these are given to the adopting stepparent. Legally, the stepparent becomes a parent, and the stepfamily "becomes" a nuclear family.

Of course, not all stepfamilies try to emulate nuclear families (Papernow, 1993). Instead, many stepfamilies construct new ways to function that reflect their "step" realities. Members of these families may consider stepchild adoption for reasons that do not reflect a desire to become a nuclear family.

In light of the gaps in the literature, the purposes of this study were to: (1) explore the factors that stepparents consider when contemplating adoption of their stepchildren and (2) exam- ine stepfamily members' motivations to adopt. Using a social constructionist perspective, we investigated whether the factors considered by stepfamily members reflected images of family life based on nuclear families.

Methods

Sample The sample consisted of 32 adults and 22 children from 16

stepfamilies in which there was at least one stepchild between the ages of 10 and 19 living in the household the majority of the time. One criterion for inclusion in the sample was that stepchil- dren be at least 10 years old because we felt that younger chil- dren would have a difficult time understanding questions asked in the interview. Of the 16 stepfamilies, 14 were stepfather-mother households, and 2 were complex households in which both adults

64 Family Relations

were stepparents to children in the household; none were stepmother-father households. In seven of the stepfamilies, one of the adults had children from prior relationships who lived in another residence with the adult's former spouse. Both adults were interviewed in all families, and all children who resided in the household and who were between ages 10 and 19 were interviewed from 15 of the families.

All of the families were White and generally middle class; the median family income was between $40,000 and $50,000 per year, and most adult participants had attended college. Most of the adults were employed full-time outside of the home. All of the parents had been divorced from their previous spouses, and 81% of the stepparents had been previously married and di- vorced. The parents' earlier marriages had lasted a mean of 7.32 years (range = 9 months-20 years), and the stepparents had been married previously for 6.89 years (range = 1-13 years). The re- married couples had been married a mean of 5.59 years (range = .92-12.17 years). The mean age of adults was 39.80 years (range = 30-51), and the mean age of children who were interviewed was 13.93 (range = 10-19).

The participants were recruited through various media, and adult study participants were asked at the end of interviews to recommend other remarried families that we might contact to be in the study. Interviews were conducted with family members in- dividually. All of the participants lived in central Missouri. Fami- lies were monetarily reimbursed for their participation in the study.

Interview Protocol The in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted

using an approach developed by Buehlman, Gottman, and Katz (1992). This semi-structured interview was based on Gottman's modification of Studs Terkel's interviewing method and Satir's family life chronology (Buehlman et al., 1992). In this type of in- terview, not every question is asked in order, nor are all questions asked in every interview. The researcher goes with the natural flow of conversation, trying to get the interviewees to be as ex- pansive and involved as possible. The goal was to understand the subjective world of the people being interviewed and the con- structions they have of their experiences and life circumstances.

The primary focus of the interview was on the development of stepparent-stepchild relationships, but several questions were asked that dealt with adoption. For example, stepparents were asked, "Have you ever thought about adopting your stepchild?" and "What effect do you think adoption would have on your fam- ily relationships?" If stepparents had not adopted their stepchil- dren, they were asked, "How do you think the absence of a legal tie with your stepchildren has affected your relationship with them?" Stepparents who had adopted were asked how they thought the adoption had affected the relationship. Parallel ques- tions were asked of parents and stepchildren. Probes or follow-up questions were asked when appropriate. Whenever possible, in- terviewers asked open-ended questions, or they followed closed- ended questions with probes and requests for elaboration. For ex- ample, a stepfather indicated that he had thought about adopting his stepchildren several times but had not said anything to other family members. The interviewer asked about the stepfather's thoughts and feelings regarding adoption and explored with him why he had not mentioned them to others in the family.

In this type of interview protocol the interviewers ask such questions as, "What does adoption mean to you (as a steppar- ent)?"; "What impact, if any, do you think adoption would have on you, on your stepchildren, on the family as a whole?"; "What reactions do you expect from others in the stepfamily if you were to mention the possibility of adopting the stepchildren?" In these interviews we tried to find out not only what happened, but what the participants thought and felt about what happened.

Immediately after the interview, field notes and interviewer impressions were either dictated on the audiotape or written by the interviewer. In addition to the interviews, family members filled out a battery of questions that focused on stepfamily rela- tionships and individual well-being. The questionnaire data were not used as the primary data source for this study. Tape malfunc- tions prevented us from transcribing all of the data from two of the adults, so in these cases only field notes were available for re- view. Stepparents and parents generally were interviewed by the faculty members of the research team, and stepchildren usually were interviewed by graduate students. Whenever possible, inter- viewer and interviewee were matched by gender.

Data Analyses The transcribed interviews were read independently by all

four researchers. Instead of using an a priori coding scheme, the interviews were coded using an inductive approach (Patton, 1990). The process of analyst triangulation was used to guard against the coding schemes being the product of only one per- son's perceptions and interpretations (Patton, 1990). The plan was that each person would analyze the data independently. Analyses were compared, and minor differences and discrepan- cies in inferences and identified themes and patterns of responses were resolved via discussion.

We read the interviews again using the revised analytic scheme. Interviews were read one family at a time. Patterns or themes in the data were examined both on a family level and on an individual basis. That is, we tried to analyze the data in such a way that commonalities and differences within and between fam- ilies could be identified, as well as similarities and divergence across individual family positions (e.g., stepparents in different families). Subsequent to this reading, we again met, discussed our analyses, and resolved the few minor disagreements.

Results

The stepfamilies in this study were recruited to participate in an investigation of stepparent-stepchild relationships. Therefore, all of them contained steprelationships, but stepparent adoption had occurred in only one complex stepfamily (i.e., both adults had children from prior marriages). Adoption by a stepparent in simple stepfamily households (i.e., only one adult is a stepparent) legally transforms the stepfamily into a nuclear family, and steprelationships are transformed into parent-child relationships. Consequently, it was not surprising that only one stepfamily had experienced an adoption because adoptive stepparents are unlike- ly to identify themselves as stepparents, nor are they likely to agree to participate in a study of stepparent-stepchild relation- ships. Therefore, the results of this study should be generalized only to non-adoptive or pre-adoptive stepparent households.

Although stepchild adoption had occurred in only one fami- ly, adoption was a relevant issue for this group of stepfamilies. In nearly all of the families, at least one member had given some

1998, Vol. 47, No. 1 65

thought to the stepparent adopting a stepchild. In about half of the stepfamilies, adults had talked with children about adoption. In the other half of the stepfamilies, members gave differing re- ports on whether or not adoption had been considered. Some- times one adult reported that he or she had talked about steppar- ent adoption with the spouse, but the other adult claimed that adoption had not been discussed.

We can only speculate about why some family members re- ported discussing adoption while others reported that adoption was not discussed. Perhaps those who said adoption had been discussed between family members were those for whom the issue was more important; the issue of adoption holds more salience for some stepfamily members than it does for others. For stepparents and stepchildren, adoption could have a direct effect on their self-identity and legitimate a position for them within the family. The self-identity of residential biological parents would not undergo changes to the same degree, so adoption would be less relevant or less important to them.

Family members co-construct reality through interaction with each other and by sharing perceptions, expectations, and meanings of situations with each other (Dallos, 1991). The step- families in which members reported similar accounts of how seri- ously adoption was considered were those in which there was agreement between members on the possibility of adoption; that is, those family members shared similar perceptions regarding how constraining the potential barriers were to the likelihood that stepparent adoption could be accomplished. In families with less consistency in reporting, some members perceived barriers to adoption that were not identified by others in the family.

Issues Considered in Stepchild Adoption Whether or not family members thought about or discussed

stepchild adoption was related primarily to the level of involve- ment of the nonresidential parent. If the nonresidential parent was actively involved, or at least was in somewhat regular con- tact with the stepchild, then adoption usually was not seriously considered. In those cases adoption was not seen as a realistic op- tion; as one stepfather noted about his stepson, "He's got his dad and he's also got me." In explaining why adoption was not con- sidered in her family, a mother said, "Their father is still a very dominant figure in their life and probably always will be." A 14- year-old stepson said, "I never thought about adoption because I have my other father." Another stepchild said, "It's [adoption] never been an issue for me and my brother because we see our real dad every other weekend." Adoption was even less of an op- tion when the nonresidential parent had a good relationship with the children; when that was the case, adoption was not thought to be appropriate.

However, some stepfamily members gave adoption careful consideration even when the nonresidential parent was involved with the child. In situations in which the nonresidential parent was not especially close to the children, yet maintained contact periodically through phone calls or visits, the remarried family adults often contemplated adoption but were reluctant to engage in what they anticipated would be hostile legal proceedings and angry interactions over the request that nonresidential parents surrender their parental rights. In these families the decision was made not to seek a stepchild adoption because the stepfamily adults feared that the nonresidential parent would contest giving up parental rights. As a mother of two adolescents, who had been

remarried for 12 years, explained, "Well [adoption is] out of the question. I mean, we would have to have the approval of their fa- ther, and that would never happen." This mother had endured a contentious custody battle with her former husband several years earlier, but this type of sentiment was expressed even when rela- tionships between former spouses had been generally dispassion- ate. When former spouse relationships had been characterized by hostility and conflict over the children, then stepfamily members were especially reluctant to pursue adoption.

Financial concerns also were important barriers to seeking adoption. The loss of financial provisions for the child from the nonresidential parent, either through the loss of child support or the withdrawal of money for such items as college, was relevant for some stepfamilies. One mother, in explaining why her hus- band had placed adoption proceedings on hold, stated that it was due to ". . . the cost involved. We aren't in a position that we can just drop that [child support] money, and I don't know how much my ex-husband will fight it, just to be hateful ...." In a third of the families, parents stated that they would lose child support if parental rights of the nonresidential parent were terminated, thus ending parental obligations for financial support as well. For some stepfamilies, this was an important issue, and one that led the adults either to abandon adoption plans or to delay them. A stepfather, explaining why he had not pursued adoption, said, "The only thing that has ever kept me from discussing the adop- tion of [my stepchildren] is because I don't know what it would do as far as child support and that type of thing." One 15-year- old stepson, who wanted his stepfather to adopt him, yet realized that he needed his father's economic support to attend college, stated that he might have his stepfather adopt him after he finish- es school.

Other financial concerns were related to: (a) the ongoing fi- nancial commitment that an adoptive stepparent would have to the adopted child if the remarriage ended and (b) the actual costs of adopting, such as court fees and attorney fees. These monetary issues were mentioned more frequently by stepparents than by parents and never by stepchildren. In one stepfamily in which adoption had been discussed between adults and children, but no action had been taken, the stepfather stated, "I guess, really, in a way, it's probably more of a relief [that adoption has not hap- pened]. . . if [we] were to split up, I wouldn't have no financial ties or anything towards her." That same stepfather on legal costs: "There's a lot of money to have a lot of lawyers say a lot of things that really don't mean a whole lot except that you've got to go through [it to adopt the child]."

The only other reason given for not considering or for not pursuing adoption was also related to a concern about continuing obligations and ties if the remarriage ended in divorce. One wife, remarried for over a decade, did not want her husband to adopt her daughter because she did not think the remarriage would last and did not want to be saddled with a relationship with him should they divorce.

Motivations for Stepchild Adoption A common motivation for family members to consider adop-

tion was the desire to become as much like a nuclear family as possible. Sometimes this was phrased in terms of family close- ness or family integration. For example, several individuals men- tioned a desire to bring the family closer together through stepchild adoption. For example, a stepfather who was thinking

66 Family Relations

about adopting his 12-year-old stepdaughter said, "We're just trying to meld the family together and strengthen it." Some of these stepfamilies functioned very similarly to nuclear families, and members of these families saw adoption as completing the process of becoming a "real" family. Adoption was seen as a mechanism to help cement relationships.

In some stepfamilies the stepchildren were emotionally clos- er to stepparents than they were to their nonresidential parents, and adoption was seen as a way to solidify the stepparent- stepchild relationship and to reflect its closeness. In other step- families individuals hoped that adoption would somehow draw the family closer together and give members a sense of being "in family" together. For example, the one stepmother who adopted saw herself as "Mom," the person upon whom everyone could rely for help and nurturing. To her, legally adopting her stepchil- dren legitimized that role. Her husband agreed; after discussing how unfit his ex-wife was as a mother, he explained the rationale for why his second wife adopted his children: "The actual deci- sion, I think, was hoping that it would give the kids the feeling more of having a real mom." A stepdaughter in another family said she "wouldn't mind" being adopted by her stepfather be- cause "I could probably call him Dad then and feel comfortable with it." From these perspectives, adoption would legitimize the use of family labels (i.e., mom or dad) and the taking of the cul- turally institutionalized roles of mother and father, son and daughter.

It should be noted that some of the closest steprelationships were in families in which adoption had never been considered. In some of these families, it seemed that a strong nonresidential parent-child relationship provided the security necessary for a good stepparent-stepchild relationship to develop. In these step- families there was no motivation to adopt in order to develop re- lationships between stepparents and stepchildren that resembled parent-child relationships.

For some stepfamilies adoption was perceived to be a way to remove some of the daily hassles of being in a stepfamily, such as having different last names. This was of particular importance to stepchildren, and it should be noted that in three of these step- families, the stepchildren used the stepfather's last name at school. In this way they achieved unofficially what they per- ceived to be an advantage of adoption in reducing a complication in their lives. For example, one adolescent stepson complained that his friends could not find him in the telephone directory be- cause the family telephone was listed in his stepfather's last name rather than in his. To this stepson, adoption would easily solve this problem for him.

Another motive for adoption was a concern about what would happen if the residential parent would die when the chil- dren were minors. This was mentioned by adults only. A mother said,

The only thing, my only fear is that if something would happen to me ... he would have absolutely no legal right to her. And that's the scary part for me . .. it would tear his heart [out] again and tear hers [the daughter's] to pieces if something happened to me, and that's my biggest concern.

The stepmother who adopted her stepchildren reported that her husband agreed to the adoption because of this issue:

. .. and I said, "If something happens to you, they're just gonna be whipped off to her and you know she'll fly in

because that would be the kind of thing where she could come in and be the big hero ... not only will they lose you, but they'll lose the stability in the family and every- thing else, and who knows what'll happen to them ...." One of the major reasons [for the adoption] was probably JusL so that they would be safe if something happened to him.

The father in this family agreed: "Their [biological] mother was real inappropriate and still is, and it's a legal way of severing those ties. [Adoption] stops a lot of problems early on." These stepfamily adults recognized that the children would likely be re- quired by law to live with the nonresidential parent if the residen- tial parent were to die and that the stepparent would have little legal recourse to maintain contact with the stepchildren. In our state third party visitation is relatively rare, particularly when stepparents are the third party. Said one stepfather, "We were thinking more in the aspect of if something later on were to hap- pen to one of us, is there some way to firm this up so we don't have problems."

The lack of legal relationships between stepparents and stepchildren was not a motive to consider adoption for most step- family members. This was true even among those who were con- cerned about the possibility that the stepparent would lose con- tact with the stepchild if the parent died. These folks perceived the potential for problems if something happened to the residen- tial parent, but they did not think the absence of legal rights made a difference in their relationships. This apparent paradox may be due to the fact that the legal dimensions of family relationships are usually unobtrusive. Legal issues do not often come up in daily family life, and it is likely that many of these stepfamily members had not had an occasion to be confronted by the con- straints inherent in the absence of legal rights. A few did com- ment on the absence of legal rights, however. One stepfather re- ported,

My company allows me to pay for their health insurance even though I have no legal relationship. I found this bizarre. That was a weird sensation to think that I had no legal relationship to them at all. Most days it makes no dif- ference, but it' s a weird feeling.

This stepfather is citing an example of the ambiguity sur- rounding stepparent-stepchild relationships. In this case the step- father was quite aware that he had no legal rights as a stepparent, yet he was allowed to assume financial responsibility for his stepchildren, at least in terms of health insurance.

Not all family members had the same degree of motivation for the stepparent to adopt the stepchild. Stepparents, particularly stepfathers, thought about adoption more often than their spous- es. Stepchildren also thought about adoption more than parents did. These differences make sense in light of the fact that steppar- ents and stepchildren would be the ones changing the status of their relationship if adoption happened.

Children's Understanding of Adoption Although children's understanding of stepchild adoption was

not a purpose of the study, we thought the children's reactions were worthy of comment. Stepchildren sometimes thought they had been adopted even when no legal procedures had been initi- ated. Other children were not sure if they had been adopted or not. This is probably because they lack familiarity with the term adoption; it was clear to us that several of the children were not

1998, Vol. 47, No. 1 67

entirely familiar with the concept, especially the preadolescents. Even those who presented themselves as if they were familiar with and understood the concept of adoption seemed to have lim- ited perceptions about what adoption meant. For instance, earlier we quoted a stepdaughter who thought adoption would be good because she would be more comfortable calling her stepfather "dad" and a stepson who wanted his friends to be able to find him in the phone book.

On the other hand, a stepchild who had been adopted was quite angry about it because he had thought that nothing substan- tive would change because of the adoption, and to his regret he found that many things had changed for him. The stepmother's motivation for adopting her stepchildren appeared to be at least partially to garner recognition and support for the important role she had played in their lives and to seek legal sanction for that role. Her expectations for relationship changes that would be in- stigated by the adoption were not clearly communicated to the rest of the family; in fact, she may not even have been complete- ly aware of these motivations at the time of adoption. The adopt- ed stepchild resented what he saw as efforts to replace his biolog- ical mother. He blamed his stepmother for hurting his relation- ship with his mother, even though the mother had voluntarily dis- continued contact with him long before the adoption, and his stepmother had been the only mother-figure he had known. This adolescent had agreed to the adoption when he was 10 years old, but clearly he had not understood at that time what it meant inter- personally and psychologically to other family members or to himself.

In summary, adoption was related to a desire to be a "regu- lar" family, to disconnect the nonresidential parent from their lives, to legitimize roles and relationships, or to legally support what the stepparent or stepchild felt about each other. Stepchil- dren did not always understand what adoption would mean to their relationships with parents and stepparents.

Discussion

Implications for Practitioners The socially constructed view that adoption normalizes step-

families by changing them to nuclear families illustrates the need for family life educators and family counselors to help stepfamily members expand their thinking about ways to function success- fully, thus reducing the pressure for stepparents to feel that they have to fit the norms for parent-child ties. Practitioners need to be able to think creatively about families so that they can help step- family members who cannot see any options other than the nu- clear family model. Although the nuclear family model appeared to be working at least somewhat successfully for some of the stepfamilies we interviewed, for most it was an inappropriate model to follow because it caused more problems (e.g., strained stepparent-stepchild relationships) than it solved. There are other ways to raise children, and practitioners need to be aware of this and help stepfamily members creatively adapt a model that is comfortable for them.

Few stepfamily members in our study were able to think about their families in ways other than as a variation of the nucle- ar family model. For many individuals in these stepfamilies, the social construction of family is embodied in the norms and ex- pectations that surround first-marriage, nuclear families. If the step-relationships felt close, stepfamily members wanted to turn

those relationships into "real" family ties if there were no barriers to doing so. Adoption was seen as a way to solidify and strength- en relationships or to recognize strong feelings between stepkin. The perception that adoption normalizes the stepfamily by changing it into a nuclear family illustrates the need that some stepparents and stepchildren have to fit the norms for parent- child roles.

Stepfamily roles are unclear (Ganong & Coleman, 1994; Ka- plan & Hennon, 1992; Visher & Visher, 1979), stigmatized (Coleman & Ganong, 1987; Dainton, 1993; Fine, 1986), and hold low salience for the identities of most stepparents (Keshet, 1990). For the most part, individuals in step roles are not interested in role making if they can enact the relatively familiar roles of par- ent and child. Those who considered adoption were those who were engaged in assuming parental roles as much as possible. However, when nonresidential parents were actively involved with their children and had warm relationships with them, then stepparents, stepchildren, and residential parents had little option but to engage in constructing a new role for the stepparent to play in the stepchild's life; in these stepfamilies adoption was seldom, if ever, considered.

Despite the ubiquity of the nuclear family as the standard family form, there are other ways of conceptualizing family life (Scanzoni & Marsiglio, 1993). For instance, adoption scholars have identified a continuum of openness in adoption (Kirk, 1964;1981). At one end of the continuum are those who reject the notion that adoptive families differ from nuclear families. These families essentially re-construct themselves as nuclear families, differences in family formation and relationships are de- nied, and ties with birthparents are not maintained. The stepfami- lies in our study who most seriously discussed and considered adoption are similar to these adoptive families. At the other end of the continuum of adoptive openness, however, are the families who acknowledge differences between themselves and non- adoptive nuclear families, and they provide another model of how to think about being a family. In these adoptive families, family members are encouraged to accept differences (i.e., how they are unlike non-adoptive families). Children are allowed, and even encouraged, to develop and maintain contact with birthpar- ents. Adoptive parents acknowledge the nature of their relation- ship with adopted children, and both adults and children are given opportunities to explore ways to think about themselves, their feelings, and their families (Colon, 1978). The example por- trayed by adoptive families that acknowledge their differences from nuclear families represents a model that stepfamilies could adapt, whether they adopt stepchildren or not.

Other models for constructing new ways to create families and family roles may be learned by observing the practices of some African American families (Crosbie-Burnett & Lewis, 1993). For example, in African American communities, biologi- cal mothers, or bloodmothers, are expected to care for their chil- dren, but African American communities have also recognized that vesting one person with full responsibility for mothering a child may not be wise or possible. As a result, othermothers- women who assist bloodmothers by sharing mothering responsi- bilities-traditionally have been central to the institution of Black motherhood (Troester, 1984).

bell hooks (1984) suggests that the relationships between bloodmothers and othermothers may have greater theoretical im- portance than currently recognized, and this phenomenon could

68 Family Relations

be an especially useful way to broaden our thinking about step- parent roles. According to hooks, "This form of parenting is rev- olutionary in this society because it takes place in opposition to the ideas that parents, especially mothers, should be the only childrearers . . . This kind of shared responsibility for child care can happen in small community settings where people know and trust one another. It cannot happen in those settings if parents regard children as their property, their possession" (p. 144).

Although parents are unlikely to say that their children are pieces of property, their parenting behavior often reflects such an assumption (Hill Collins, 1990). For example, parents seem to have the right to discipline their children as they see fit, even if that discipline is abusive. Hill Collins likens this to the widespread assumption that property owners may dispose of their property without consulting members of the larger community. African Americans challenge the notion of children as property when the African American community assigns othermothers and other nonparents the rights and responsibilities of parenting. This notion of Black women as othermothers has allowed African American women to treat biologically unrelated children as if they were members of their own family.

The assumptions of some of the stepparents in our study that adopting their stepchildren would bring the family closer seems to be related somewhat to the model of "child as property." In fact, reflecting the notion of ownership, one child indicated that she wished to be adopted "because then I would be his." Allow- ing stepmothers and stepfathers to serve the role of othermother would require us to think of family boundaries as transcending the household and would provide status and a legitimate role for stepparents. As it stands, the stepparent and the nonresidential parent often end up in competition over who will own the proper- ty (i.e., the child). The one who has legal rights is the owner, and the only way a stepparent can gain legal rights is to adopt the stepchild.

We have identified two models for families that do not re- strict children and families to two responsible parent figures, one from adoptive families and one from African American families. There are other models, and family life educators and other fami- ly practitioners could aid stepfamilies by teaching them about these adaptive models of family life.

Stepparents and stepchildren appeared to be more motivated to consider adoption than biological parents because they were concerned about solidifying their relationships and reducing some of the ambiguities of stepfamily living. Practitioners could help stepfamily members by assisting them in thinking about other ways of feeling more connected to each other. Many, per- haps most, stepparents are not able to determine ways to develop close steprelationships that are not identical to parental relation- ships (Ganong & Coleman, 1994). They need help in thinking of creative ways to establish emotionally satisfying steprelation- ships.

In working with stepfamilies whose adults are seriously con- sidering adoption, legal and helping professionals should make efforts to explore the meanings stepfamily members attach to adoption and the expectations stepfamily members have regard- ing the effects they think adoption will have on their relation- ships. It would be wise for practitioners to make sure that chil- dren understand as completely as possible what adoption is, in- cluding legal, social, and interpersonal dimensions. We also urge family professionals to caution stepfamily adults that children's

understandings about concepts such as adoption change as their cognitive abilities develop (Brodzinsky, Singer, & Braff, 1984). Adults should not be surprised if the issue of adoption needs to be discussed again with children as they enter adolescence and as they gain new cognitive skills and more abstract ways of thinking about the world and their relationships.

It should be remembered that not all stepparents in our study thought about adoption as the only way to solidify relationships with stepchildren, nor did all of them conceive of nuclear family models as the benchmark. For example, in several of the step- families in which nonresidential parents were quite active in childrearing, stepfathers had spent a lot of time working on developing a special relationship with their stepchildren. Adop- tion was not an option for these men, yet they had found satisfy- ing ways to be close and connected to their stepchildren. In sev- eral of the stepfamilies we interviewed, children participated in the marriage ceremony of the parent and stepparent and received some symbol of their joining with the adults in creating a new family unit, such as a ring or a pin. Practitioners could assist step- family members in modeling themselves after stepfamilies who have thought of creative ways of being a stepfamily.

Implications for Social Policy Pertaining to Stepfamily Adoption

In light of the findings from this study, it may be appropriate to develop social policy that allows for the establishment of some legal ties between the stepparent and stepchild without relin- quishing the biological parent's legal ties. The current state of law regarding adoption supports an implicit policy that children shall have no more than two parents at a time. This policy creates problems for stepfamilies, and makes adoption a necessity if stepparents want to have a legal say in their stepchildren's lives, yet mandating that a parent must sever her or his relationship with children. Some social critics have suggested that states be allowed to create incomplete adoptions, which would allow non- residential parents and their kin the legal right to continue to visit and have relationships with children who are adopted by their stepparents (Mahoney, 1994). Seen as an approach that would ac- commodate more people's needs, this method would legally allow three or more adults to be involved in the lives of children whom they are helping to raise. Nonresidential parents and step- parents could be given legal recognition that they have an interest in the well-being of children who do not live with them all of the time but whom they may financially help to support and whom they may see periodically.

Although not designed with the stepfamily in mind, a system recently implemented in Great Britain, England's Children Act 1989, which took effect in 1991, established a new concept in English law: parental responsibility. This Act regards children as their parents' responsibility but eliminates the notion of children as their parents' property. In effect, this law ends the notion of custody in the law (Fine, in press). The Children Act 1989 pro- vides an opportunity for stepparents who have been married to the child's parent for at least two years to have a legal relation- ship with their stepchildren by petitioning the court for a "resi- dence order." Such a petition can be granted even over the objec- tions of the nonresidential parent, although the children's opin- ions must be heard (Masson, 1992), and it gives the petitioning adult many of the same rights and responsibilities as the child's biological parents. For example, establishing a residence order al- lows the stepparent to have the legal right to sign permission

1998, Vol. 47, No. 1 69

forms for school or health care when the stepchild is in his or her home or residence. Under this act the stepparent can also be ap- pointed guardian, which helps secure the stepparent's position in the event of the parent's death if the parent holds a sole residence order.

Although a residence order gives parental responsibility to the petitioner (e.g., the stepparent), it does not end the nonresi- dential parent's status and responsibility. In the case of stepparent petitioners, the child may end up with a legal relationship with three or four adults, including both parents and stepparents, all of whom will have both parental responsibilities and obligations to the child. As a result of the British Children Act 1989, Masson (1992) asserted that adoption orders in favor of parents and step- parents will likely become rare, and any stepparent seeking adop- tion during the lifetime of the child's other parent will need to have exceptionally strong reasons for the order and be able to demonstrate that adoption is in the best interests of the child.

The British Children Act 1989 appears to be a step towards legally establishing social positions for stepparents, just as other- mothers are socially recognized in the African American commu- nity. At the very least, it is a step away from considering children to be the property of their birth parents and a step towards broad- ening the notion of family, family rights, and family responsibili- ties. In England it is not yet clear whether or not the concept of parental responsibility, the legal position of guardians, and the proposed residence order will meet the stepfamily's emotional need to be a legal family entity (De'Ath, 1992).

These two policy proposals, the idea of incomplete adop- tions and the British Children Act of generalized parental re- sponsibility, move closer to the role-making situations in which many stepparents and stepchildren find themselves. These policy ideas represent societal-level efforts to create new norms for step roles and to legitimize, at least in some ways, stepfamily roles that lack clear, institutionalized norms. These two policy propos- als also allow more flexibility to allow stepfamily members to creatively construct new roles.

Implications for Future Research

Obviously, the results of this exploratory study should not be generalized without caution. Much more research on stepchild adoption is needed. The responses from these stepfamily mem- bers suggest several avenues of investigation. First, because little is known about the extent of stepchild adoptions, there is a need for large-scale studies of representative samples that will provide descriptions of adoptive stepparents and their families. Currently, it is impossible to say how many stepchild adoptions occur annu- ally, and we cannot predict who is likely to adopt until we have demographic profiles of stepfamilies in which stepchildren have been adopted.

There is clearly a need for longitudinal investigations of the effects of stepchild adoption. Outcome variables could include intrapersonal effects of adoption (e.g., well-being, depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction) on adoptive stepparents, adopted stepchildren, residential and nonresidential biological parents, and extended kin. Interpersonal outcome variables, such as rela- tionship satisfaction, emotional closeness, and family stability, should also be assessed. Longitudinal studies of both adoptive and nonadoptive stepfamilies would shed light on whether or not adoption fulfilled the expectations of it that were embodied in the present sample.

Because enhancing the well-being of children is one of the primary goals of adoption, research on stepparent adoption should focus on children in particular. For instance, what are the effects on children of adoptions that occur when the nonresiden- tial parent has voluntarily yielded parental rights, as compared to adoptions when the parent has had to be declared unfit? How do children cope with identity issues that may arise? By what psy- chological or interpersonal mechanisms do they cope with the parent "giving them" to the stepparent? Researchers should also examine children's understandings of the concept of adoption, paying special attention to developmental changes that may occur.

Finally, it would be interesting to compare the impact of dif- ferences in state laws regarding stepparent adoption. For exam- ple, is stepparent adoption awarded more often in states in which nonresidential parents can legally continue to see their children after they give up their parental rights? Are stepparents less moti- vated to adopt when state laws allow them the possibility of re- ceiving visitation rights with their stepchildren if the marriage ends? Cross-national comparisons of stepparent adoption laws could also elucidate the effects of legal options on individuals and families.

Conclusion

Because the number of people involved in stepfamilies con- tinues to rise, it is vitally important that social and legal supports be developed to foster their success. Although researchers and clinicians have often repeated the warning that the nuclear family model may be inappropriate, they have seldom offered concrete alternatives, and the nuclear family model remains the societal ideal. It is the family form that is viewed as "normal." It is little wonder that so many of the stepfamily members we interviewed considered adoption. Adoption is a legal means of establishing the stepfamily as a "normal" family.

To illustrate the extent to which adoption is used as a mecha- nism to create a nuclear family, in our state at the time of adop- tion the child's birth certificate is altered to show the adoptive parent as the birth parent. In that way the adoptive parent be- comes a real or "normal" parent (i.e., the child "belongs" to him or her). The sense that everyone in a stepfamily "belongs" to each other may be what some members of the stepfamilies we studied were seeking. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was most often the stepparent who mentioned considering adoption. The stepparent is the outsider in a stepfamily, the intimate stranger (Beer, 1988); to a stepparent, adoption may seem like the most efficient way to become a real part of the family.

At the societal level, efforts are needed to broaden the defini- tion of family (Scanzoni & Marsiglio, 1993). For example, among family scholars and social critics, feminists have long at- tempted to disabuse people of the traditional notion that wife and children are chattel or men's property. Other family scholars may want to build on the feminists' efforts to challenge the notion that children are parents' property. Policy makers and legislators need to look at family law more creatively as well and develop legal alternatives that strengthen stepfamilies without requiring the severing of previous family ties. Change is often disorienting and upsetting to individuals and to the broader society. Family change, however, has been occurring at a rapid pace throughout the century, and we are challenged with providing supportive means to strengthen these emerging family forms.

70 Family Relations

References Beer, W. (1988). Relative strangers: Studies of stepfamily processes. Totowa,

NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co. Brodzinsky, D. M., Singer, L., & Braff, A. M. (1984). Children's understanding

of adoption. Child Development, 55, 869-878. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, J. F. (1992). How a couple views their

past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295-318.

Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634-650.

Coale Lewis, H. C. (1985). Family therapy with stepfamilies. Journal of Strate- gic and Systemic Therapies, 4, 13-23.

Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (1987). The cultural stereotyping of stepfamilies. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting today: Current research and theory (pp. 19-41). New York: Guilford.

Colon, F. (1978). Family ties and child placement. Family Process, 17, 289-312. Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Lewis, E. (1993). Use of African-American family struc-

tures and functioning to address the challenges of European-American postdi- vorce families. Family Relations, 42, 243-248.

Dainton, M. (1993). The myths and misconceptions of the stepmother identity: Descriptions and prescriptions for impression management. Family Relations, 42, 93-98.

Dallos, R. (1991). Family belief systems, therapy, and change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Daly, K. (1988). Reshaped parenthood identity: The transition to adoptive par- enthood. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17, 40-66.

De'Ath, E. (1992). Facts, figures, and the stepfamily: Are there more questions than answers in the Children Act of 1989? In B. Dimmock (Ed.), A step in both directions (pp. 27-31). London, UK: National Stepfamily Association.

Duran-Aydintug, C., & Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1995). Law and stepfamilies. Mar- riage and Family Review, 21, 169-192.

Fine, M. (in press). Policies affecting stepfamilies: Guidance from the empirical literature. Marriage and Family Review.

Fine, M. (1989). A social science perspective on stepfamily law: Suggestions for legal reform. Family Relations, 41, 334-340.

Fine, M. (1986). Perceptions of stepparents: Variations in stereotypes as a func- tion of current family structure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 537- 543.

Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (in press). How society views stepfamilies. Mar- riage and Family Review.

Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & Mapes, D. (1990). A meta-analytic review of fami- ly structure stereotypes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 287-297.

Goldner, V. (1982). Remarriage family: Structure, system, future. In J. C. Hansen & L. Messenger (Eds.), Therapy with remarried families (pp. 187- 206). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Hill Collins, P. (1990). Blackfeminist thought. New York, NY: Routledge. hooks, b. (1984). From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press. Kaplan, L., & Hennon, C. (1992). Remarriage education: The personal reflec-

tions program. Family Relations, 41, 127-134. Keshet, J. (1990). Cognitive remodeling of the family: How remarried people

view stepfamilies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 196-203. Kirk, H. D. (1981). Adoptive kinship: A modern institution in need of reform.

Toronto, Canada: Butterworths. Kirk, H. D. (1964). Sharedfate. New York, NY: Free Press. Levine, E. S., & Sallee, A. L. (1990). Critical phases among adoptees and their

families: Implications for therapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 217- 232.

Mahoney, M. M. (1994). Stepfamilies and the law. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Masson, J. (1992). Stepping in the nineties: A summary of the legal implications of the Children Act of 1989 for stepfamilies. In B. Dimmock (Ed.), A step in both directions (pp. 4-16). London, UK: National Stepfamily Association.

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

Papernow, P. (1993). Becoming a stepfamily: Patterns of development in remar- riedfamilies. Cleveland, OH: Gardner.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reitz, M., & Watson, K. (1992). Adoption and the family system. New York: Guilford.

Scanzoni, J., & Marsiglio, W. (1993). New Action Theory and contemporary families. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 105-132.

Troester, R. R. (1984). Turbulence and tenderness: Mothers, daughters, and 'oth- ermothers'. In P. Marshall (Ed.), Brown girl, brownstones: A scholarly jour- nal on black women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

United States Bureau of the Census. (1992). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the 1990s (Current Population Reports, pp. 23-180). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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

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

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1996). Therapy with stepfamilies. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Watson, K. (1996). Family-centered adoption practice. Families in Society, 77, 523-534.

Wolf, P. A., & Mast, E. (1987). Counseling issues in adoptions by stepparents. Social Work, 32, 69-74.

Received 5-6-97 Revised & Resubmitted 8-12-97 Accepted 11-1-97

| Access organizations, practitioners,

professors, &students interested in

familyissues!

Rent the Family Relations subscriber mailing list for only $110 per thousand names

rS Ihl Contact Kathy Royce toll free at 888-781-9331, ext. 21 E 612-781-9331, ext. 21 NCFR * Fax: 612-781-9348 * E-mail: kcroyce@ncfr.com

1998, Vol. 47, No. 1 71