ShareThis Page
Today’s stepfamilies are more like collections of people |

Today’s stepfamilies are more like collections of people

| Monday, June 6, 2011 12:00 a.m

A journalist called me the other day wanting me to make some pithy, erudite comments on the subject of the so-called “stepfamily.” I am eminently qualified, I propose, to remark on the subject, because I was raised in one, although it was not called a stepfamily back then. We were a family: me, my mother, my stepfather, and their two children. We weren’t really any different from any other family, at least as far as I could tell. He was my stepfather, but I called him “Dad.”

And, by the way, my other father, the one I saw in the summers only (he lived more than a 1,000 miles away), had no problem with that. My stepfather set rules, assigned responsibilities and disciplined me when he felt I needed discipline. My mother did not interfere in any of that.

Back to the journalist: I told her that the primary problem concerning today’s stepfamilies is that the people in them don’t act like they’re living in a family. Rather, they act like they’re living in a “step.” Their emphasis is on the prefix. Under the circumstances, the stepparent is akin to being a guest in the home. This is especially the case when he or she is not allowed free disciplinary license with the children of his or her spouse.

Both Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil say that a stepparent should not discipline the stepchildren. In fact, this has become stock advice from mental-health professionals. Supposedly, when the stepparent disciplines, a boundary is violated. This causes the stepchild confusion and resentment and can precipitate rebellion and other equally dire things.

Really• I wasn’t confused. And I didn’t resent my stepfather’s discipline any more than I resented my mother’s. And, when I went to live with my biological father, my rebellion hit an all-time high. And, after living with him for a little more than a year, I called my mom and begged to come home, even though bio-dad had given me a car and set me up in my own apartment (at age 16). I gave all that up for a stepfather who let me drive his car only occasionally and had me do things like paint the house and weed the yard by hand. I must’ve had some mental disorder that caused me to prefer confusion and resentment.

There now are more stepfamilies than either single-parent or first-marriage families in America. The statistics vary from source to source, but best estimates are that 40 percent to 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce. The divorce rate, however, for second marriages where one or both parties has children from prior unions is between 60 percent and 70 percent.

I propose that the dramatic increase in the divorce rate for stepfamilies is largely due to the fact that steppeople do what Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil (and the majority of mental-health professionals) recommend. They create an us-and-them family that isn’t really a family. It’s just a collection of people with pronounced, unresolved territorial issues attempting to live under one roof. It’s a convenient arrangement, at least, from a financial standpoint (usually), but that’s about the best that can be said for it.

The journalist asked for my recommendations. Here they are: When a stepfamily is formed, the marriage relationship must come first. That is family rule No. 1, regardless of prefixes or the lack of them. It is in everyone’s best interest that pre-existing parent-child relationships be “reduced”and relegated to the proverbial back seat. The children should be prepared for this in advance, so that their new status doesn’t come as a shock.

The more proactive the adults involved, the more likely everyone will succeed in the new family arrangement. And, mind you, it is in everyone’s best interest that this new family succeeds.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.