PAPERNOW, P CLINICA GUIDELINES.. FP 57 Buscar

Clinical Guidelines for Working With Stepfamilies:
What Family, Couple, Individual, and Child

Therapists Need to Know
PATRICIA L. PAPERNOW*
This article draws on four decades of research and clinical practice to delineate guideli-
nes for evidence-informed, clinically sound work with stepfamilies for couple, family, indi-
vidual adult, and child therapists. Few clinicians receive adequate training in working
with the intense and often complex dynamics created by stepfamily structure and history.
This is despite the fact that stepfamilies are a fundamentally different family form that
occurs world-wide. As a result many clinicians rely on their training in first-time family
models. This is not only often unhelpful, but all too often inadvertently destructive. The
article integrates a large body of increasingly sophisticated research about stepfamilies
with the author’s four decades of clinical practice with stepfamily relationships. It
describes the ways in which stepfamilies are different from first-time families. It delineates
the dynamics of five major challenges stepfamily structure creates: (1) Insider/outsider
positions are intense and they are fixed. (2) Children struggle with losses, loyalty binds,
and change. (3) Issues of parenting, stepparenting, and discipline often divide the couple.
(4) Stepcouples must build a new family culture while navigating previously established
family cultures. (5) Ex-spouses (other parents outside the household) are part of the family.
Some available data are shared on the impact of cultural and legal differences on these
challenges. A three-level model of clinical intervention is presented: Psychoeducational,
Interpersonal, and Intrapsychic/Intergenerational Family-of-Origin. The article describes
some “easy wrong turns” for well-meaning therapists and lists some general clinical guide-
lines for working with stepfamily relationships.
Keywords: Individual, Couple, and Family Therapy with Stepfamily Members; Therapy
with Stepchildren; Parenting and Discipline in Stepfamilies; Clinical Work with
Stepcouples; Stepparents; Stepfamily Challenges
Fam Proc 57:25–51, 2018
S tepfamilies must form intimate relationships within a profoundly different infrastruc-

ture that can pose significant challenges for all concerned. The distress can be intense.
The divorce rate for stepcouples is slightly higher than for first-time couples (Teachman,
2008). The issues arise not only in couple and family therapy, but in individual therapy
with adults and children, either as the primary focus, or as significant (but often unac-
knowledged) background to other concerns. Well-informed, systemically focused help can
make a big difference.
Clinical work with step relationships can be daunting. The good news is that a
large body of increasingly sophisticated research (Ganong & Coleman, 2017a, 2017b,
*Director, Institute for Stepfamily Education, Hudson, MA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia Papernow, 6 Westridge Road,
Hudson, MA 01749. E-mail: [email protected].
25
Family Process, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2018 © 2017 Family Process Institute
doi: 10.1111/famp.12321
26 / FAMILY PROCESS
in this issue; Pasley & Garneau, 2012; Pryor, 2008; Stewart, 2007) and four decades
of clinical practice (Browning, 2017; Browning & Artfelt, 2012; Papernow, 1987, 1993,
2008, 2013, 2014, 2015b; Visher & Visher, 1979, 1996) provide substantial guidance
about how to help stepfamilies meet their challenges. The bad news is that few clini-
cal programs provide training in therapy with stepfamily relationships and only two
clinical books on stepfamily relationships have been written in the last two decades
(Browning & Artfelt, 2012; Papernow, 2013). As a result many therapists lack a solid
understanding of stepfamily dynamics. All too often, even experienced therapists rely
on first-time family models, leading them to inadvertently offer misleading, and some-
times even destructive, “guidance.”
Given the numbers, this is a problem. A recent Pew Research Center Report finds that
42% of Americans have a close step relationship (Parker, 2011). Twenty-six percent of all
marriages include stepchildren (Stykes & Guzzo, 2015). The number of families, including
stepfamilies, headed by unmarried couples is rising steeply (Martinez, Daniels, & Chan-
dra, 2012; McLanahan, Garfinkel, Mincy, & Donahue, 2010; Parker, 2011). 30% of chil-
dren will spend some time living in a stepfamily before they reach adulthood (Bumpass,
Raley, & Sweet, 1995; Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). While the numbers may
be somewhat higher in the United States, a significant proportion of families all over the
world are stepfamilies (Ganong & Coleman, 2017a). This article provides a framework for
therapy with stepfamily relationships that integrates current stepfamily scholarship with
my own four decades of clinical experience. It begins by delineating what makes stepfami-
lies different. Five major challenges and a three-level clinical model are introduced. Each
of the five challenges is then described in more detail, and some “best practices” for meet-
ing each challenge are outlined on each of those three levels. Throughout, we will look at
available data about the impact of cultural and legal forces, including stigma, on
stepfamily challenges. Finally some “easy wrong turns” and general guidelines for clini-
cians are provided.
HOW STEPFAMILIES ARE DIFFERENT

First, I think it is crucial to understand that stepfamilies must build intimate relation-
ships on a very different foundation from first-time families (Papernow, 2013, 2015b).
First-Time Family Structure

In most first-time families, the adult couple has time alone together without children to
deepen their attachment, build trust, and to establish some habits and rhythms of living
together. Children in first-time families enter their parents’ already-established relation-
ship. Very important, children in first-time families usually enter hard-wired for attach-
ment to both of their parents, and vice versa. Over time, if things go well, attachment
bonds strengthen as does the family’s “middle ground” (Papernow, 1987), their shared
understandings about “how we do things.”
Stepfamily Structure
In contrast, in a stepfamily, the deeply grooved lines of connection lie between par-
ents and their children, not in the stepcouple or in stepparent–stepchild relationships.
So do the established agreements on the “appropriate” cost of a pair of sneakers, and
the definition of “noisy,” or “messy,” or “funny.” Furthermore, at least one parent out-
side the household, dead or alive, is part of the family. This is what I call “stepfamily
architecture.”
www.FamilyProcess.org
PAPERNOW / 27
Stepfamilies Come in Many Forms
Stepfamilies come in many forms. Stepcouples may be married, or unmarried.
Increasingly in the United States they are unmarried (Bumpuss & Lu, 2000; Cherlin &
Seltzer, 2014; Parker, 2011). Only one adult may bring children. Both adults may bring
children, creating two sets of these established relationships and agreements. The original
co-parent relationship may have ended with divorce, or death. Due to rising rates of
unmarried cohabiting parents and, in some populations, out-of-wedlock birth, stepfamilies
are increasingly preceded by neither divorce nor death. The partners in the stepcouple
may be gay, straight, bi, transgender, or queer. The family may include new children of
the couple, or not. The couple may also be “Living Apart Together” (L.A.T.), that is, living
separately, but in a committed relationship (Benson & Coleman, 2016; Coulter & Hu,
2015; de Jong Gierveld, 2004). Finally, divorce rates have fallen and stabilized in the
United States, except among those over 50 where rates are rising steeply (Brown & Lin,
2012) with a concomitant rise in the numbers of late-life recouplers with adult children
and grandchildren (Papernow, 2013, 2016b, 2017, this issue).
All these families are stepfamilies. They all have in common that at least one
parent–child relationship precedes the adult couple relationships. This basic structure
creates five major challenges to intimate relationships.
A MAP FOR CLINICAL WORK WITH STEPFAMILIES: FIVE CHALLENGES AND

THREE LEVELS OF CLINICAL WORK
Whether the clinician is working with an individual adult or child, a couple, or a family,
stepfamily dynamics are inherently intense, and often chaotic and confusing. Using a
first-time family map to navigate stepfamily relationships is a bit like trying to drive
around Los Angeles with a map of Boise, Idaho. You, and your clients, will make many
wrong turns, frustration levels will rise precipitously, and accident rates will increase sig-
nificantly. An up-to-date map with accurate driving directions is essential. My own map
for this territory describes five major challenges and three levels of clinical intervention
(Papernow, 2013, 2015b).
Five Challenges Created by Stepfamily Structure

Stepfamilies by their very nature are complex and infinitely varied. However, across
stepfamily forms, I see five recurring challenges, each with recognizable, repetitive pat-
terns that are created by “stepfamily architecture”:
(1) Insider/outsider positions are intense. And stepfamily structure keeps these positions
fixed in place for a long time.
(2) Children in stepfamilies struggle with losses, loyalties binds, and change.
(3) Parenting tasks can divide parents and stepparents.
(4) Stepfamilies must build a new family culture while respectfully navigating previously
established cultures.
(5) Other parents outside the household (ex-spouses) are part of the family.
Most research still focuses on married white middle-class stepfamilies with children
under 18. Nonetheless, in my experience, unmarried stepcouples and those with adult
children face these same challenges. Social, cultural, and legal forces can affect the inten-
sity of these challenges, as well as the resources available to meet them. Although the field
is only beginning to address “diverse” stepfamilies, available data will be included here
about African-American and Latino stepfamilies, stepfamilies headed by gay and lesbian
Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

28 / FAMILY PROCESS
couples, as well as some data about non-Western stepfamilies, drawing particularly on my

own experience with Japanese stepfamilies. We will also look at the growing number of
especially vulnerable American stepfamilies classified as “fragile families” headed by
young, unmarried stepcouples with less education, drastically lower incomes, and much
higher rates of paternal incarceration than married couples (McLanahan et al., 2010). A
separate article in this subsection addresses the challenges for late-life recouplers (Paper-
now, 2017).
Three Levels of Clinical Work

I use a three-level model to organize clinical work with these challenges (Papernow,
2008, 2013, 2015b, 2016d). This model integrates the diverse threads of my own clinical
journey, including a lifelong commitment to preventive mental health education, training
in a variety of couple and family systems models, and substantial trauma training. All
prove important in addressing stepfamily dynamics.
I. Psychoeducation: The “what” level
On this level we are offering information about what is normal, what works, and what
does not, to meet stepfamily challenges. On the psychoeducational level, the interaction
takes place between the therapist and the couple or family (or individual client). As Froma
Walsh puts it, “Differences from either average or ideal norms are often experienced as
stigmatized deviance: deficient and shame-laden” (Walsh, 2012, p. 46). On this level we
are saying, “This is so much more painful and confusing than you expected. We know a lot
about what is happening, and what works, and what doesn’t. Would you like to hear?” I
continuously ask, “What’s that like to hear from me?”
Systemically trained therapists are sometimes taught to focus on process more than
content. Attention to process is crucial in effective work with stepfamilies. However, step-
families are often lost in difficult territory. In my experience, providing some evidence-
informed (Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011) guidance for navigating the complexities is often
essential to enhancing wellbeing.
II. Interpersonal connection: The “how” level
This level focuses on how stepfamily members work together to meet their challenges.
On this level, I am saying, “This is an important conversation. Can I help you have it in a
way that brings you closer rather than pulling you apart?” On this level, I am asking my
clients to turn to each other. I am focusing on identifying patterns and cycles of interac-
tions and on facilitating more satisfying connection, not just by sharing information, but
by helping my clients to engage differently in the moment. I believe that this level is as
important in individual work with stepfamily members as it is with couples and families.
(In individual therapy, role playing is often part of helping clients to internalize new
skills.)
Across many cultures (Kim, 2010; Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2013, 2015a, 2016d;
Webber, 2003), the constant, often unexpected, misunderstandings, mis-attunements, and
dysregulating surprises of stepfamily life can be divisive and dysregulating. Family
scholars are finding that successful stepfamilies face the same challenges as struggling
stepfamilies. However, successful stepcouples bring better interpersonal practices and
provide more mutual support (Golish, 2003; Pace, Shafer, Jensen, & Larson, 2015;
Shapiro, 2014; Shapiro & Stewart, 2012; Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999).
My work on this level includes two important components: (1) Teaching key interper-
sonal practices (e.g., Fishbane, 2013; Gottman & Gottman, 2017; Nielsen, 2017; Papernow,
2013, pp. 177–186; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). (2) Shaping in-session
PAPERNOW / 29
experiences that forge empathic, affective connection (e.g., Halford, Nicholson, & Sanders,
2007; Johnson, 2008; Papernow, 2013, 2016a).
III. Intrapsychic family-of-origin work: The “why” level
When information does not stick, or improved interpersonal practices cannot be main-
tained, and/or reactivity remains high (or low), that is my clue to begin turning my atten-
tion to exploring individual family-of-origin wounds and intergenerational legacies that
may be driving reactivity.
On this level I am saying, “Nobody would like this. . . . And, something about this is tak-
ing your wise brain off line.” I like to offer “the bruise theory of feelings,” a metaphor that
de-pathologizes these old wounds (Papernow, 2013, p. 10): If something hits your arm in a
place where the flesh is healthy, it hurts. If there is a bruise there, it hurts in a whole differ-
ent way. If the bruise is deep, you will see a trauma response: Fight, flight, freeze, or cling.
(See also Scheinkman & Fishbane’s “vulnerability cycle” [2004].) Especially if bruises are
deep, effective family-of-origin work will often be necessary before further progress is
possible.
FIRST CHALLENGE: INSIDER/OUTSIDER POSITIONS ARE INTENSE. AND THEY

ARE FIXED
Understanding the Insider/Outsider Challenge
In a stepfamily, the established lines of intimate connection and the easy rhythms of
interaction lie within parent–child relationships, not in the stepcouple or in stepparent–
stepchild relationships. In a first-time family, insider/outsider positions rotate. Sometimes
Mommy is closer to a particular child. The next day or the next year, it’s Daddy. In a step-
family, whenever a child (or an ex-spouse) enters the room or the conversation, the struc-
ture pushes stepparents into an outsider position and pulls parents into a stuck insider
position. Although all of this may evolve over the years, in my experience, this challenge
often remains in softer form, re-emerging at major family transitions such as weddings
(Papernow, 2013). Here is Jake’s family, a year into becoming a stepfamily:
Jake has two children, Emma (12) and Josh (10). The children’s stepmother, Eva, says, to Jake,
“Whenever your kids show up, it’s like I’m invisible.” Jake responds, “But they’re my kids. What
do you expect?” Eva strikes back: “But I’m your wife! When do I ever get to come first?” Jake says,
desperately, “Eva. Please. Don’t make me choose.” Eva dissolves in tears.
Here is what might have preceded this exchange: Eva, the stepparent, has finally found a
private moment with Jake. In the middle of their conversation, Jake’s daughter Emma
arrives home from school, eager to share stories about her day. Emma needs her daddy,
not her stepmother. She bursts through the door saying, “Daddy, Daddy, you wouldn’t
believe. . .” Jake does what any good parent would do. He turns to his daughter. Suddenly,
at the very same moment that Eva, the stepparent, feels (and is) ignored and invisible,
Jake, the parent, feels (and is) visible, needed and engaged. In stepfamilies, day in and
day out, at the dinner table, in “family” conversations, riding in the car, and making deci-
sions with the ex, stepparents become stuck outsiders. At the very same moment, parents
are often stuck insiders. Stephen Porges states that we are neuroceptively wired to expect
that intimate others will not turn their backs on us (2011). In stepfamilies, parents must
turn their backs on stepparents over and over again. Outsiders often feel rejected, lonely,
and invisible. Insiders are deeply connected to their new partners, to their children, and
to keeping the peace with their children’s other parent. When parents need to turn away
to their children, stepparents often feel abandoned. For parents, turning toward their
partners means children’s needs may not be met. Choosing to avoid conflict with

30 / FAMILY PROCESS
ex-spouses means stepparents may feel betrayed. The struggle to balance all of the impor-
tant people in their lives can leave stuck insiders feeling torn, anxious, and inadequate.
When this goes well, stepparents reach to parents for comfort and understanding: “That
was tough. I could use a hug.” Parents share their dilemmas with stepparents: “I feel so
torn!” Over time, successful stepcouples deepen their awareness of each other’s insider-
ness and outsiderness. Eva and Jake are not that couple. As Eva continues to be left out,
she becomes withdrawn and sullen, until she finally blurts, “You did it again! You left me
out!” Jake shoots back defensively, “What’s your problem? She’s my daughter!” Eva
retorts, “But I’m your wife!” “Family time” becomes increasingly strained and tense for all
concerned.
In families with two sets of children, those who spend less time in the house often enter
as outsiders. Outsider children may feel like “strangers in a strange land,” never quite at
home. Those who live more full-time in the house may feel stuck in an “insider” position,
feeling intruded upon and invaded.
Cultural Forces Impact the Insider/Outsider Challenge

Stigma can intensify the insider/outsider challenge. The LGBTQ stepparents in my
practice who have little family support and only sparse connection to the LGBTQ
community are much more dependent on their partners for connection and caring, as
are undocumented and recently arrived Latino and other immigrant stepparents. The
little bit of cross-cultural data available suggests that stepparents are especially
marginalized in cultures where “nuclear family ideology” is very strong (Ganong &
Coleman, 2017a). Second wives in Hong Kong, for instance, have been referred to as
“worn shoes” (Tai, 2005).
As in many far Eastern cultures, Japanese stepparents enter as outsiders not just to
parent–child relationships, but to especially strong grandparent–parent–child relation-
ships (Raymo, Iwasawa, & Bumpass, 2004) strengthened by oyakoko, deep-seated values
of filial piety. Japanese culture also values togetherness without conflict (Lee et al., 2013):
Japanese ideals of isshin denshin (unspoken mutual understanding), ittaikan (one-ness),
and sassuru (nonverbal sensing of another’s feelings) (Vogel, 2013) make the kind of active
communication required to meet stepfamily challenges much more arduous (Papernow,
2015a, 2016d). In my experience, these values require clinicians to closely read subtle
shifts and nonverbal clues much more closely.
Meeting Insider/Outsider Challenges

Next we turn to helping stepcouples to meet their insider/outsider challenges on the
psychoeducational, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels. Whatever the level of the clini-
cal work, stepcouples often arrive in our offices feeling alone, ashamed, and, deeply disap-
pointed. My first move is, almost always, to step in and hold the affect with them: “You are
both so longing for connection. And both feeling so alone.” “This is so not what you were
wishing for.” “That word ‘blended’ didn’t set you up for this, did it!”
I. Psychoeducation for meeting insider/outsider challenges
Normalize the challenge
I find that providing stepcouples with the language of “insiders and outsiders” can, in
itself, be immensely comforting. “This is not happening because you don’t love each other.
It’s because you live in a stepfamily. In a stepfamily, whenever a child enters the room or
the conversation, the stepparent very often becomes an outsider. The parent becomes an
insider. Does that sound right?” “What’s that like to hear from me?”
PAPERNOW / 31
Encourage one-to-one time
All five stepfamily challenges often intensify when the whole family is together. Step-
families do need time together to build a sense of “we.” However, in stepfamilies, parent–
child, stepcouple, and stepparent–stepparent–stepchild subsystems are often in competi-
tion with each other. When attachment needs are met in one subsystem, the others may
languish. One-to-one time meets the attachment needs not only of the stepcouple, but of
all of the relationships in the family. I encourage stepcouples to carve out regular alone
time for each subsystem, including for stepparent–stepchild relationships. Be aware that
releasing couples from “straining to blend” is a relief to some and a terrible grief for
others.
Increase small private moments of couple contact
I encourage stepcouples to string together small moments of connection out of children’s
eyesight: daily cuddling, a 6-second good night or good-bye kiss or a 20-second hug, eye
contact, short loving texts, footsie under the table (e.g., Fraenkel, 2011; Gottman & Gott-
man, 2017).
II. Interpersonal interventions for insider/outsider challenges
All stepfamily challenges can create constant attachment breaks between parents and
stepparents, especially the insider/outsider challenge. Connection cannot come the “easy
way” from feeling the same way. In a stepfamily, good interpersonal practices are essen-
tial to establishing mutual understanding and to maintaining the sense of feeling cared
about. Couple and family therapists may draw from a wide variety of modalities on this
level. I focus on strengthening interpersonal connection in two different ways (1) Teaching
key skills, and (2) Shaping experiences of connection in the session.
(1) Teach basic skills
Family scholarship identifies key practices for forging and maintaining satisfying rela-
tionships (Fishbane, Gottman & Gottman, 2017; Gottman & Silver, 2015; Johnson, 2008;
Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010). While struggling stepcouples often
need a lot of help here, I find that almost everyone in my practice can learn a few more
basic skills. Here are a few of my favorites:
Take a breath: Many clinicians see self-regulation as a key interpersonal skill (Fish-
bane, 2013; Gottman & Gottman, 2017; Gurman, Lebow, & Snyder, 2015). This is espe-
cially so in stepfamilies. I closely track arousal levels: “Oops. Can you sense the tension
rising” “What are the clues?” “When you notice that, try taking a breath.” If the person
has little awareness, “OK if I help you notice?”
Cultivate positives. Generating positive moments fills the “emotional bank account” for
all couples and softens negative moments. I often share John Gottman’s finding that
“master couples” maintain a ratio of 5:1 positive to negative interactions (Gottman &
Gottman, 2017) as well as the finding that couples headed to divorce tend to notice, and
express, more negativity (Gottman & Gottman, 2017; Gottman & Silver, 2015; Mark-
man et al., 2010). Given the flood of upsetting moments stepfamily challenges can cre-
ate, we often have to especially encourage stepcouples to proactively look for positive
feedback: “Thanks for getting your son to clear the dishes. It helps me a lot.”
Practice repair and apology. “I was sharp. So sorry!”
Avoid “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” I teach my clients to recognize these four

32 / FAMILY PROCESS
behaviors that predict divorce, both in my office and at home: criticism, defensiveness,
contempt (“sulfuric acid to relationships”), and stonewalling (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
Make requests rather than criticisms: “Could you try saying that again, softer?” versus
“You’re being a bitch.” Or, “Your daughter is a slob.” “Could you ask Alice to put her
backpack in her room after school?”
(2) Shape experiences of connection
When reactivity is high (or low), learning new skills is not possible. In these cases, I
need to step in and shape an experience, with in the session, of feeling heard and seen. I
use a structure called “joining” to slow conversations way down and to build empathic con-
nection (Papernow, 2013, pp. 179–180; 2016a).
To Eva: “Can you find just a couple of sentences, the nub of what you most want Jake to get.” Eva
speaks a sentence or two. Jake starts to jump in with, “But. . .” I put my hands up in a time-out
sign and say to Jake: “Before you respond, I know you love this woman. Take a breath. Can you
find the place in your heart where you DO understand what Eva is saying?” “Can you tell her?”
To Eva: “Did he get it?” “What’s that like inside?” “Ok to tell hiim that?” To Jake: “Now add a sen-
tence of your own. What you most want Eva to get.” Before Eva responds, “Can you tell Jake what
you DO get about what he just said?”
We go back and forth, very slowly. When partners lead with criticism, I try to reach
for the longing that lies underneath (e.g., Johnson, 2008, 2013). For example: Eva
says to Jake, “You don’t even look at me when your kids are here.” I say to her, “Eva,
it sounds like you’re so longing for Jake to turn and look at you. It would help you so
much for him just to give you some eye contact. Is that right? Can you tell him that?”
III. Intrapsychic family-of-origin issues that impact the insider/outsider challenge
Stuck insider and outsider positions evoke strong feelings in all humans. However, for
stepparents who grew up feeling disregarded, unprotected, or abandoned, this challenge
can be especially painful. Likewise, parents who could not please their own parents will
feel much more triggered by their partner’s complaints. I find that a sense of “looping,
looping, looping” over the same material is a helpful clue to shift to this level. Exploring
and healing old bruises may free resources to meet the challenge. I always start by vali-
dating the normal, often intense, feelings created by challenge: “Nobody would like being
left out/feeling so torn. And, something is frying your wires!”
SECOND CHALLENGE: CHILDREN STRUGGLE WITH LOSSES, LOYALTY BINDS,

AND THE PACE OF CHANGE
Understanding Children’s Challenges
A stepfamily creates losses for children
For adults, finding a new partner is a gift. However, for children of all ages, watching
Mom or Dad turn away to a new love can create yet another cascade of losses, on top of the
losses of separation and divorce. (See Claire Cartwright’s groundbreaking series of quali-
tative research studies focusing on children’s experience of loss in stepfamilies [2008].)
Stepfamilies often create loyalty binds for children
The entrance of a stepparent often creates a loyalty bind for children of all ages: “If I
care about my stepmom, I am disloyal to my mother.” Loyalty binds are normal. I see them
even in friendly, collaborative divorces (Papernow, 2013). However, parental conflict tight-
ens loyalty binds unbearably. Sometimes, even when there is no parental conflict, a child
PAPERNOW / 33
who is especially close to their “other” parent (in my experience, often an oldest girl) may
experience a more intense loyalty bind.
We know that Japanese, Chinese, and Latino values are more likely to stigmatize
divorce and remarriage. Stepfamilies in these cultures are often eager to “pass” as first-
time families (Adler-Baeder & Schramm, 2006; Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2015a, 2016d;
Tai, 2005; Webber, 2003). The resulting pressure on children to accept the stepparent as
parent can leave them especially alone with the loss of their nonresidential parent and
with their loyalty binds, as well as carrying the extra burden of stigma.
Stepfamilies create big changes for stepchildren
New stepcouples are, understandably, eager to begin their new lives together. As a
result, the adults often move at a pace that is much too fast for children. In fact, for many
children, the transition to a stepfamily is often harder and takes longer than parental sep-
aration and divorce (Ahrons, 2007; Hetherington, 1999). A meta-analysis of 61 studies
examining children’s adjustment to remarriage tells us that as the amount and pace of
change goes up, children’s wellbeing goes down (Jeynes, 2007). Indeed, for stepchildren in
“fragile families,” high rates of instability may be one of the primary factors in poorer well-
being (Waldfogel, Craigie, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010).
For some children of LGBTQ parents, becoming a stepfamily involves an extra load of
change as they adjust to their parent’s coming out as well as to a new stepfamily. It is
important to note that, despite this extra challenge, substantial research finds very posi-
tive wellbeing levels for children in families headed by lesbian and gay couples (Johnson,
O’Connor, & Tornello, 2016; Patterson, 2009).
Age and gender matter
The research tells us that stepfamilies are easier for children under nine (Hetherington,
1993; van Eeden-Moorefield & Pasley, 2012). They appear to be easier for boys than girls
(Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998), and hardest for early adolescent girls (van Eeden-
Moorefield & Pasley, 2012). I am finding that late-life recoupling can sometimes be especially
challenging for young adult and adult daughters (Papernow, 2013, 2016b, 2017, in this issue).
Helping Children Thrive in Stepfamilies

In my experience, we can often most help children by first helping adults to understand
and meet children’s needs more effectively. When the adults are concerned about a “resis-
tant” or struggling child, I like to assess for the amount and regularity of parent–child
one-to-one time, the intensity of children’s losses and loyalty binds, the pace of change,
whether a stepparent needs to be eased out of a disciplinary role (see third challenge,
ahead), the presence of ex-spouse tension (fifth challenge, ahead), and the adults’ level of
empathic attunement to the child’s experience.
I. Psychoeducation: Helping adults to help stepchildren
Hold the affect for the adults
When a child is “acting out,” I begin with, “It’s heartbreaking that this is so hard for his/
her/your daughter. Not what you wanted, huh!” I find that hiding under what adult “resis-
tance” (“But why doesn’t she. . .” “How could he. . .”) is often huge grief and shame. The “lan-
guage of wishing” (Papernow, 2013) can help access the underlying grief: “You so wish this
kid could be more accepting of you/your new partner. Who wouldn’t want looks like that?”
Normalize children’s challenges
Adults and children experience stepfamilies very differently. As a result, I find that
adults often need a lot of help to understand stepchildren’s experience. “I know that

34 / FAMILY PROCESS
Emma’s ‘resistance’ is really hard to bear for both of you. I think I can help you under-
stand what’s happening here. Want to hear?”
Slow the pace of change
When the couple is dating, we often need to help parents to introduce stepparents
slowly, a step at a time. For adults eager to get started on their new lives, this can be
deeply disappointing. Leading from compassion is crucial: “You are so excited and so eager
to start your new lives. It looks like slowing down is hard. Am I right?” Later, after forging
an empathic connection, “Well here’s the good news. A step at a time saves nine. Waiting
to move in together is tough, but it will reap benefits for all of you.” “What’s that like to
hear from me?” Children with more losses, tighter loyalty binds, more transitions, and
especially vulnerable kids (for instance, children on the spectrum) may need considerably
longer to adjust, more time alone with their own parent, and less “family time.”
Give children a voice
I share with the adults that children’s acceptance is higher when adults invite kids to
share their feelings and concerns about their new family (Cartwright, 2010). Often part of
my job here is to help the adults to empathize rather than explain or correct. (See Level II
ahead in this section.)
Give children language for their feelings
We can help children by giving them language for their feelings of loss, their loyalty
binds, and for all that has changed. “Lots of kids feel . . .. Does that fit for you?” Not only
therapists, but parents, and stepparents, as well as well-informed grandparents, clergy,
school and medical personnel, can do this for kids.
Encourage one-to-one parent–child time
I coach stepcouples to carve out regular one-to-one time for parents with their chil-
dren, without stepparents. I tell stepparents to join a volleyball team, go see a good
friend, and to create a space in the house where they can withdraw. It may be
reassuring to stepparents that positive parent–child relationships are linked to more
positive stepparent–stepchild relationships (Jensen, Lippold, Mills-Koonce, & Fosco,
2017; King, 2009). I encourage some separate vacation time for parents and children
(as well as for stepcouples).
Teach adults to give “Loyalty Bind Talks” (Papernow, 2013, p. 57).
Jake can say to his children, “Sometimes it can be kind of confusing when a kid has a
mom and a stepmom. Your mom’s place in your heart, and hers in yours, is permanent.
Like the mountains. Like the sun. I hope sometime you come to care about Eva. But even
if you do, it will be in a separate place in your heart from your Mom’s place.” Again, not
just parents and stepparents, but all adults who work with and care about children can be
taught to do this. (It can be comforting to share this message with the ex-spouse parent:
“Here’s what we’re saying to the kids about their connection to you. We want you to feel
reassured that nobody is ever going to replace you.”
When co-parental conflict continues unabated, this is a time when individual therapy
can provide a safe space for children to “feel felt,” to express themselves fully, and to get
help protecting themselves (along with continuing attempts to help the adults to cool their
conflict).
Encourage parents to maintain key routines
In the midst of big changes, familiar routines and objects provide comfort and stability
(Greenberg & Lebow, 2016). Maintaining key routines like bedtime and mealtimes can help
immensely. For kids, this is often not the time for all new furniture or brand new curtains.
PAPERNOW / 35
Coach stepcouples to keep adult physical intimacy private
New stepcouples are often quite physical. The adults may believe that physical expres-
siveness gives children a better model of intimacy. However, children, even adult children,
find this profoundly unsettling. It intensifies their losses, and tightens loyalty binds. I do
encourage stepcouples to revel in their physical relationship, but to keep it private.
Set realistic expectations for children’s step relationships
Immediate togetherness may be the adults’ wish, but it is usually not the children’s
reality. Building stepparent–stepchild relationships and forging a sense of “family” takes
time, lots of it—years not months (Papernow, 1993, 2013). Generally, step sibling relation-
ships are less close than biological sibling relationships (Ganong & Coleman, 2017a). I tell
my clients that civility, not love, is a realistic expectation for new step relationships. If
civility is extremely hard to come by, consider providing more parent–child time and less
family time, and/or separating step siblings who are having a hard time with each other.
II. Interpersonal intervention for children: Strengthen parent–child attunement
On the interpersonal level, I find that increasing parental empathy is often a key part
of helping stepchildren who are struggling. “The most regulating force for children is par-
ental attunement” (Schore, 2016; Siegel, 2012). However, because stepfamily structure
places parents and children in such different positions, parents often need lots of help
empathizing with their children’s pain and rage.
My stepfamily colleagues and I (Browning & Artfelt, 2012) find that, especially early in
therapy, parent–child work usually needs to be done within that subsystem, not in the
presence of stepparents. Adults do often bring children for family therapy “to help the kids
adjust.” But picture this: In a family meeting, Emma (12) says to her father, “I hate Eva”
(her stepmother). What Emma most needs from her father is something like, “Boy this is
hard, huh.” Meanwhile, Eva is longing for her husband to discipline his daughter for being
rude to her. If Dad takes care of his wife, he abandons his daughter. If he takes care of his
daughter, his wife may feel deserted. Family therapy in stepfamilies usually needs to pro-
ceed in subsystems (Browning, 2017; Browning & Artfelt, 2012; Papernow, 2008, 2013,
2015b).
Before meeting with the parent–child subsystem, I like to meet with the stepcouple to
get the stepparent on board, and to do some psychoeducation with them about children’s
challenges. Stepparents are often also much more open to parent–child work if they first
feel their partners “get” the pain of feeling rejected and alone in their outsider position.
Stepparents also need reassurance that parent–child work is not about ganging up on the
stepparent. It is about giving children the regulating connection they need for basic well-
being in the midst of a huge transition. I sometimes also meet with parents alone. “The
way you can most help your child is to hear her pain. Let’s talk about what that will be like
for you.”
In parent–child sessions, I use “joining” to help parents empathize. To the child:
“Emma, can you tell your dad what’s been hardest for you? What you most want him to
know about what all this new family has been like for you?” To the parent: “Dad, I know
you love your daughter. Can you start with what you DO understand about what she just
said? Can you tell her?” In parent–child work, joining goes in only one direction, from par-
ents to children.
III. Intrapsychic issues impact parental attunement
Jake understands the importance of empathizing with his daughter Emma. Nonethe-
less, instead of finding his compassion, Jake finds himself quickly moving into “fix-it”
mode in response to her distress. In his daughter’s presence, I concentrate on firmly,

36 / FAMILY PROCESS
compassionately insisting that Jake practice “joining.” “Jake, stop. Take a breath. I know
you love your daughter. I think Emma just said that she is really missing you. Can you
find the place in your heart where you DO understand what she just said to you?” “Can
you tell her?” Seeing that even with my guidance, Jake quickly lapses into explaining and
correcting his daughter, I schedule an individual session for Jake to focus on what is mak-
ing this so tough for him. “Jake, nobody would like seeing his daughter in such pain. And
something is happening inside you that’s making it hard for you to be the dad you want to
be. Help me understand, at the moment Emma looks sad, what happens inside for you?”
THIRD CHALLENGE: PARENTING TASKS CAN DIVIDE PARENTS AND

STEPPARENTS
Understanding Parenting Challenges in Stepfamilies
A large body of research finds that children in all family forms do best when parents
practice authoritative parenting (Luyckx et al., 2011; Steinberg, 2001). Authoritative
parents are both loving (warm, responsive, and empathic) and moderately firm (they
calmly set developmentally appropriate expectations and monitor behavior).
The challenge is that stepfamily structure pulls stepparents and parents into opposite
corners: Parents everywhere seem to want more caring and understanding for their chil-
dren, while stepparents across many cultures seem to want more limits and boundaries
with their stepchildren (Faroo, 2012; Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2015a, 2016d; Tai, 2005;
Webber, 2003). Stepparents often describe parents as “weak” or “wimpy.” Parents often
see stepparents as “too harsh.” When this challenge goes well, stepparents can help par-
ents to “firm up.” Parents can help stepparents to “soften up.” When this goes poorly, par-
ents and stepparents become increasingly polarized. Stepparents become harsher; parents
become more permissive. Neither meets children’s needs. Nor does the accompanying con-
flict. It is interesting that first-time couples and stepcouples have similar levels of conflict.
First-time couples fight primarily about money. Stepcouples fight primarily about chil-
dren (Stanley et al., 2002).
Meeting the Challenges of Parenting, Stepparenting, and Discipline in Stepfamilies

I. Psychoeducation for parenting, stepparenting, and discipline in stepfamilies
Family scholarship provides some clear guidelines for parenting, stepparenting, and
discipline in stepfamilies:
Children need authoritative parenting
I say to polarized stepcouples, “You’re both right. Kids need both loving and firmness.”
Parents need to retain the disciplinary role
Early discipline by stepparents has been clearly established as detrimental (Ganong &
Coleman, 2017a; Hetherington et al., 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Kinniburgh-
White, Cartwright, & Seymour, 2010). After stepparents build a caring, trusting relation-
ship with stepchildren, they can sometimes move slowly into authoritative parenting,
especially with younger stepchildren (Hetherington et al., 1998; Papernow, 2013). I have
seen many healthy stepfamilies where stepparents have no disciplinary role. In my experi-
ence, a stepparent may move, over time, into an authoritative disciplinary role with one
child (often a younger one) but not another (often an older child with more losses or tighter
loyalty binds) (Papernow, 2013). Interestingly, research suggests that African-American
stepfathers (Stewart, 2007) and gay stepfathers (Crosbie-Burnett & Helmbrecht, 1993;
Lynch, 2005) are more likely to leave discipline to their partners. In contrast, Japanese
PAPERNOW / 37
stepparents are expected to simply replace nonresidential parents as disciplinarians
(Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2015a, 2016d), increasing the intensity of this challenge.
Authoritarian stepparenting is toxic
The research is clear: Authoritarian, harsh parenting by stepparents is toxic to steppar-
ent–stepchild relationships (Bray, 1999; Ganong, Coleman, & Jamison, 2011; Hethering-
ton & Kelly, 2002; Hetherington et al., 1998). This finding appears to be holding true even
in cultures that value authoritarian parenting (Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2015a, 2016d;
Webber, 2003). When stepparents parent harshly, children need their parents’ protection.
However, cultural values and stigma may provide barriers to parental protection. For
instance, because Japanese family values remain fairly patriarchal, Japanese mothers are
more likely to feel pressured to support punitive parenting by stepfathers, leaving their
children feeling betrayed and devastated (Nozawa, 2015; Papernow, 2015a, 2016d). An
undocumented Latina mom may find it especially difficult to confront a stepfather with
legal citizenship.
Stepparents need to practice connection before correction
The guideline I give stepparents is “connection before correction” (Papernow, 2013). We
can encourage stepparents to concentrate on what Ganong and Coleman call “affinity
maintaining behaviors” (Ganong et al., 2011), such as empathic listening, expressing
warmth and caring, and practicing constructive communication (Golish, 2003; Papernow,
2013; Schrodt, 2006). I spend some time helping stepparents to find easy, low-key activi-
ties they can do alone with their stepchildren, without the parent. (When the parent is
present, the parent–child relationship dominates.)
Many mothers in low-income Latino and African-American families have well-
established practices of “child keeping” and “other mothering” (co-parenting children of
relatives and friends) (Crosbie-Burnett & Lewis, 1993; Stewart, 2007). However, it
appears that, for many reasons, many African-American and Latina women prefer not to
extend “other mothering” to the children of their romantic partners (Burton & Hardaway,
2012), adding another layer of complexity to addressing this challenge for “fragile fami-
lies.”
II. Interpersonal practices for becoming a team around parenting challenges
Successful stepcouples do work as a team (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Papernow, 2013). How-
ever, until stepparents have built strong trusting stepparent–stepchild relationships, I
find that a useful guideline is: Stepparents provide input; but parents have the final say
about their own children (Papernow, 2013). That said, doing this well requires the ability
to discuss differences without polarizing!
In addition to the skills listed under the insider/outsider challenge, “soft/hard/soft”
(Papernow, 2013, 2016c) is an especially useful additional tool for talking about parenting
differences. John Gottman’s research finds that a “soft startup” improves the chances of
successful communication about difficult conversations (Gottman & Silver, 2015). “Soft/
hard/soft” operationalizes this finding: I tell my clients that it’s a bit like a reverse Oreo
cookie. Before saying something “hard” (“You never make your kids clean up!”), look for
several “softs” (positive feedback, an expression of caring or empathy, etc.) “I know you’re
working with the kids on doing their own dishes. They’ve been doing a little better.” Then
say the ‘hard” thing, but say it with soft energy. “I really need Josh to knock off the dishes
in the sink!” Now add another soft. “I know this is new for them. We’ll keep working this
out!” Many of my clients cannot use empathic joining at home. However, almost all can
use soft/hard/soft.
In session, I use “joining” (see insider/outsider challenge) to slow the conversation
down. “Jake, can you give Eva a sentence, just the nub of what you most want her to know

38 / FAMILY PROCESS
about how you guys handle mess.” “Eva, before you respond, can you tell Jake what you
DO understand.” Once parents and stepparents can slow down enough to begin hearing
and understanding each other, I find that parents can often start owning their firmness
and stepparents can start owning their caring.
III. Intrapsychic issues that may impact the parenting challenge
When a parent or stepparent seems stuck in an ineffective parenting style, I begin ask-
ing “What was parenting like in the family where you grew up?” I find that parents raised
in permissive or authoritarian households may confuse the calm caring firmness of
authoritative parenting with harshness. Stepparents raised in authoritarian households
may confuse the empathic part of authoritative parenting with permissiveness, and may
find it especially difficult to relinquish their disciplinary role. I say to these folks, “You
have a double whammy! Both the family you came from and your stepfamily structure pull
you to exactly the parenting style that doesn’t work! Bummer! I’ll help.” Sometimes
awareness is enough to shift this. If not, old wounds may need attention before change is
possible. “What happens inside when. . .?” “Let’s heal some of those old bruises so we can
help you be the dad you want to be.”
FOURTH CHALLENGE: STEPFAMILIES MUST BUILD A NEW FAMILY CULTURE

WHILE RESPECTING ALREADY-ESTABLISHED CULTURES
Understanding the Challenges of Building a New Stepfamily Culture
It is the first Christmas together for Jake and his children with Jake’s new partner, Eva. Eva
happily hangs white lights on the Christmas tree. Emma, her stepdaughter, accustomed to col-
ored bulbs, bursts into tears and flees to her bedroom.
Building a new family culture is a key developmental task for stepfamilies. However,
what feels like “home” to one part of the family may feel foreign, and even offensive, to the
other. As a result, stepfamily life, especially early on, can be filled with misunderstandings
and unwelcome surprises. “What once was invisible and automatic,” says Mary Whiteside,
“becomes explicit and endlessly negotiated” (Whiteside, 1988, p. 286). The urge to power
through these differences toward “blending” can be powerful. However, again, as the pace
of change goes up, child wellbeing goes down (Jeynes, 2007). Moving too quickly to become
an “us” all too often backfires.
Helping Stepfamilies Deal with Differences While Building a New Culture

I. Psychoeducation: What works and what doesn’t to become a “we”
Change the metaphor
I tell my clients becoming a stepfamily is not like blending a smoothie. It is much more
like creating a family out of a group of Japanese and a group of Italians. Insisting that
everybody eat pasta with chopsticks will create misery, not unity.
Normalize “learning by goofing” (Papernow, 2013, p. 86).
Many deeply held understandings do not have language, until someone breaks an
expectation. The spike of arousal can be intense! Normalize, and empathize with, the sur-
prise: “Who knew wet towels could launch World War III?”
Stick to two or three rule changes at a time
Again, familiar routines provide stability for children (Greenberg & Lebow, 2016). In
my experience, successful stepfamilies build new routines and rituals a little at a time
PAPERNOW / 39
while they learn about their differences. In double stepfamilies, this may require keeping
two sets of rules for a while. When kids object, the parent can say, simply, “Yes, it’s true.
Johnny and his dad have different rules than we do. It’s because we came from different
places. Our rule is, no social media until homework is done.” I suggest that stepcouples
start with rules for safety and civility, with each parent calmly, consistently monitoring
and enforcing basic safety and civility with his or her own children.
Holiday rituals may require negotiation
Holidays were turning points for the worse in a full one-third of stepfamilies in a quali-
tative study (Baxter, Braithwaite, & Nicholson, 1999). As we saw with Jake’s family‘s
Christmas tree, in the midst of overwhelming change, even very small changes in long-
established rituals can intensify losses. Sometimes celebrating separately for a couple of
years best supports stepfamily development. Finding “virgin holidays” with no previously
established traditions, or inventing new holidays, can also support cohesion (Papernow,
2013). (For instance, in our family, “Chanukmas” is a celebration involving a tree, stock-
ings, menorahs, and latkes, celebrated in December or early January, whenever everyone
can get together.)
Equalize the burden of change
“Knock before you enter” may be second nature in one family, but a huge change in
another. What seems “perfectly reasonable” and “easy” to a stepparent may require many
(calm, kind) reminders for a stepchild or even an adult partner.
II. Interpersonal practices for dealing with differences
Good interpersonal practices go a long way toward managing the experience of living in
well with differences. (See Level II of the insider/outsider challenge.) “Soft/hard/soft” pro-
vides an excellent structure for bringing up differences (see Level II of the parenting chal-
lenge). In the office, use “joining” to help couples slow down and hear what matters to
each.
III. Intrapsychic issues that impact cultural challenges
Unexpected glitches in normal routines can easily register as attachment breaks. Grow-
ing up in a family that provided very little attunement, or where surprise was linked with
pain and abandonment, may make this challenge unbearable. If reactivity persists, old
wounds may need attention before further headway is possible.
FIFTH CHALLENGE: OTHER PARENTS OUTSIDE THE HOUSEHOLD ARE PART OF

A STEPFAMILY
Understanding the Challenge of Living Well with Ex-spouses
Stepfamily households do not begin and end at the front door. They include at least one
partner’s ex-spouse, another parent, dead or alive, loving or inadequate, who remains part
of the family. Children may also have stepsiblings, half-siblings, and stepgrandparents in
other households. Children of divorce, single-parent families, and stepfamilies do gener-
ally score slightly lower on various measures of wellbeing. However, the differences are
quite small (Jeynes, 2007). Furthermore, family scholarship has now firmly established
that interparental conflict along with compromised parenting practices are significantly
stronger predictors of child outcomes than divorce, single-parent families, or stepfamily
structure (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Dunn, 2002; Ganong & Coleman, 2017a). In other
words, it is not family structure that primarily determines wellbeing. It is family process.

40 / FAMILY PROCESS
Massive amounts of research establish the toxic impact of adult conflict on children
(Buchanan & Heiges, 2001; Cummings & Davies, 2002; Deutsch & Pruett, 2009; Grych &
Fincham, 2001; Kelly, 2000). Indeed, adult children with low-conflict divorced parents fare
significantly better than children with never-divorced high-conflict parents (Amato &
Afifi, 2006). Even moderate tension in nonclinical, never-divorced families significantly
impacts wellbeing (El-Sheikh, Buckhalt, Cummings, & Keller, 2007). For parents mired in
conflict, it is sometimes hopeful to know that authoritative parenting by one parent, and
positive, warm parent–child relationships, can moderate the impact of conflict on children
(Amato & Fowler, 2002; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Maher et al., 2016).
Legal Practices and Cultural Norms Impact Co-Parenting Challenges

Legal practices can provide support or create barriers to collaborative postdivorce co-
parenting. Many U.S. states now presume joint legal custody. Still, under U.S. law, if
children are under 18, when stepfathers or stepmothers wish to adopt their stepchildren,
the original father or mother must relinquish parental rights. Even harder for children,
Japanese divorce law gives custody to only one parent, usually the mother (Nozawa,
2015). Although divorced Japanese dads are beginning to advocate for change, all too
often, children are left with no postdivorce connection at all with their nonresidential
parent. On the other end of the spectrum, British law allows stepparents to adopt with-
out requiring the parent of the same sex to relinquish parenthood (Malia, 2008), expand-
ing co-parenting beyond ex-spouses to include stepparents. Turning to LGBT divorce,
research remains almost nonexistent (Johnson et al., 2016). However, legal adoption by
both mothers in lesbian couples appears to be linked to more shared custody (Gartrell,
Bos, Peyser, Deck, & Rodas, 2011).
Cultural norms also impact this challenge. Anglo-European family norms draw a firm
boundary around the nuclear family, setting the context for postdivorce interparental
competition. In contrast, African-American traditions of “child keeping” and “informal
adoption” support cooperation across family boundaries (Berger, 1998; Gonzalez, Jones, &
Parent, 2014; Stewart, 2007). These differences may contribute to the finding that Black
adolescent stepchildren in several large samples of married stepfamilies show signifi-
cantly more positive outcomes than their White counterparts (Adler-Baeder, Russell,
et al., 2010).
Cultural norms can also restrict, or support, nonresidential father involvement. In
Japanese and Latino stepfamilies, nonresidential fathers are often completely excluded,
even from family conversation (Nozawa & Kikuchi, 2013; Adler-Baeder & Schramm,
2006). In the United States, Latino nonresidential fathers have significantly lower levels
of postdivorce involvement than either Anglo or African-American dads (Stykes, 2012). In
sharp contrast, African-American nonresidential fathers, both married and unmarried,
maintain significantly higher rates of ongoing involvement across a variety of measures
than either Anglo or Latino dads (Stewart, 2007; Stykes, 2012).
Supporting Positive Co-Parenting across Households

I. Psychoeducation for co-parenting across households
Monitor conflict levels
The healthiest children postdivorce have positive relationships with all of the adults in
their lives (Bauserman, 2002; King, 2006, 2007, 2009; White & Gilbreth, 2001). Conflict is
so clearly corrosive to children that I urge clinicians to educate and monitor adult tension
with the same attentiveness that physicians monitor blood pressure.
PAPERNOW / 41
Collaborative co-parenting works best for children
Highly cooperative, peaceful co-parenting relationships produce the best child outcomes
(Bauserman, 2002; Hetherington et al., 1998; Kelly, 2000). Low-conflict “parallel parent-
ing” remains more common, and is next best for children (Hetherington, 1993; Hethering-
ton et al., 1998; Pryor, 2004; White & Gilbreth, 2001).
Help stepcouples to handle differences with the other household respectfully
I tell co-parents, agreement is not necessary. Handling differences respectfully
and calmly is. When a child says, “But Mommy lets me drink Coke!” Dad can
respond, “I know. At Mommy’s you can drink Coke. At Daddy’s we drink milk.
When you grow up you can decide which is better.” Not: “Mommy never did care
about nutrition.”
Teach adults to use the “language of parts” with children
Adults are often relieved to end contact with abusive ex-spouses, leaving children alone
with their confusion and loss. “I hate him,” says Luis (11) of his drug-addicted father.
“And,” he says sadly, “I have a hole in my heart.” The “language of parts” can help Luis
hold both of these opposite pulls without feeling torn apart: “Part of you is so relieved not
to be with Daddy. He was very scary. And he hurt you. And part of you loves him. Because
he’s your daddy! And children love their daddies. That’s two opposite parts in the same
boy. Both are true. I’ll help you hold both.”
When a parent has died or disappeared
Attachment is forever. This means that stepparents cannot usually simply replace an
absent parent. Stepchildren who have lost a parent, whether to death, abandonment, or
abuse, often need extra support and attunement on birthdays, holidays, and anniver-
saries. (When a parent has died, I refer clients to Diane Fromme’s excellent book. The title
says it all: Stepparenting the Grieving Child:Cultivating Past and Present Connections for
Children Who Have Lost a Parent) (Fromme, 2017).
Help nonresident fathers stay engaged
Family scholarship unassailably affirms the importance of father–child relationships
(Pruett, 2000). Likewise, children’s postdivorce wellbeing is best supported by a “triadic
secure base” that includes both parents (Pruett, McIntosh, & Kelly, 2014). Rates of nonres-
idential father involvement are increasing (Amato, Meyers, & Emery, 2009). However, for
a variety of reasons, a quarter to a third of nonresidential fathers still lose contact with
their children (Adamson & Johnson, 2013; Cheadle, Amato, & King, 2010). Father–daugh-
ter relationships are especially vulnerable (King, 2009; Pasley & Moorefield, 2004). In my
experience, nonresidential fathers benefit from encouragement and support from both
therapists and from their partners to engage warmly and consistently with their kids, to
participate in their children’s activities, and to parent authoritatively (i.e., with both
responsive warmth and calm developmentally appropriate limits). Likewise, custodial
mothers may need encouragement to include fathers.
Stepchildren in low-income, low-resource “fragile families” are particularly at risk of
losing their nonresidential fathers. There is some evidence that programs specifically tar-
geted at supporting co-parenting in these families can make a difference, one strategy
being to include unmarried fathers in prenatal appointments, childbirth, and well-baby
visits (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Gillette, 2014; McHale, Waller, & Pearson, 2012;
Pruett et al., 2016).
Use evidence-informed guidelines
Clinicians must stay current with the expanding literature on evidence-informed deci-
sions regarding postdivorce/postseparation parenting (Good current resources are: Drozd,

42 / FAMILY PROCESS
Saini, & Oleson, 2016; Greenberg & Lebow, 2016; Pruett et al., 2014). For instance: Bar-
ring parental conflict, research supports overnights for children under three. Consistent
weekday schedules predict better adjustment. Consistent weekend schedules are less
important (Pruett, Ebling, & Insabella, 2004). (When treating children in shared custody,
do be sure to secure appropriate release forms. See: AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved
Therapy, 2011.)
II. Interpersonal practices to support positive co-parenting practices
To meet this challenge, we must help our clients to bring their best skills to situ-
ations that often pull for their worst. Monitoring our own client’s behavior is essen-
tial. I teach skills like: Keep communication brief. Say what you DO understand
first, before objecting or disagreeing. Stick to the data (“Josh was ten minutes late
to school. He got detention. Can you tell me what happened?” Not: “I can’t believe
you were late again”). Make requests and avoid attacks (“I would love it if. . ..” Not:
“You never. . ..”).
With high-conflict ex-spouse subsystems, I find that carefully controlled meetings
between the adults, or, alternatively, “shuttle diplomacy” (meeting separately with the
individuals and subsystems involved), can help to protect children’s wellbeing. I use
highly focused, very firmly directed “joining” to discuss volatile co-parenting issues. To
one ex-spouse: “Can you give Jane just a sentence or two about what most concerns you
about this summer camp?” To John, Jane’s ex-husband: “Before you respond, John, can
you first say what you DO understand about what Jane just said? Not what you agree
with. Just what you do understand. Or, if you can’t do that, what you heard her say.”
“Now add a sentence of your own.”
Keep the agenda tightly focused on children’s needs. “I know you are deeply
upset with each other at times. But you both really love your son. There are a few
things you can each do to help your son feel better. And there are a few things
you can do that will definitely make him worse. Want to hear?” When I make a
suggestion, I ask, “Zero to ten. Ten is hard. Zero is easy. How hard will it be for
you to stop saying negative things about Josh’s mother to him?” If the number is
above five, there is more work to be done!
III. Intrapsychic family-of-origin work around co-parenting challenges
Negative ex-spouse behavior easily invites clinicians to side with their own clients’ out-
rage. However, high reactivity renders our clients ineffective with their ex-spouses and it
impacts their children, as well as their partners. Tom is one of several clients for whom
individual work on this level was critical to meeting this challenge.
Tom has every reason to be distressed. His daughter Talia has asthma. Tom’s ex-wife Mary is a
heavy smoker. Talia keeps returning from Mary’s smelling of second-hand cigarette smoke, often
triggering an asthma attack. Donna, Tom’s second wife, sighs, “I can’t stand all this fighting. And
it’s upsetting Talia.”
We begin with psychoeducation. “Tom, I know you love your daughter. Can I tell you a little bit
about what might be happening inside when Talia overhears you arguing with her mother?” Tom
is sobered. He asks for help “getting through to Mary.” We begin there, helping him soothe him-
self, practicing using “soft/hard/soft”, and sticking to very short sentences. He can do it in my
office.
However, a few weeks later, Donna brings Tom back saying, “He hangs in for a minute. Then it
starts again.” Now Tom and I can turn to, “Tom, what happens inside when. . .. Nobody would like
this. And something is shutting off your wise brain!”
PAPERNOW / 43
Like other dads in these cases, Tom’s reactivity led us back to his own childhood history of
abandonment. Healing these old wounds required patience, persistence, and substantial
courage. However, folks to working on this level enabled all of these significantly increase
their ability to engage their ex-spouses effectively, and, equally important, they substan-
tially lowered their children’s exposure to conflict.
SOME EASY WRONG TURNS FOR WELL-MEANING CLINICIANS

Putting the Stepcouple First
Therapists working in a first-time family model often advise stepcouples, “Put your cou-
ple relationship first. If the couple is good, the kids will be good.” However, in a stepfamily,
prioritizing the couple ignores children’s needs for secure connection with their parents.
The guideline is both/and, not either/or (Papernow, 2013). In fact, some recent longitudi-
nal research finds that positive parent–child and stepparent–child relationships, but not
the couple relationship, were associated over time with decreases in children’s internaliz-
ing and externalizing (Jensen et al., 2017).
Pathologizing Children’s Distress

Adults and children in a stepfamily experience things very differently. Again, what is
an exciting new life for adults very often creates losses, loyalty binds, and overwhelming
change for kids. As a result, parents, stepparents, and even clinicians can easily mislabel
children’s distress as “manipulative” and “resistant.” Requests for time alone with a par-
ent may be construed as “triangulating” or “not accepting reality.” In fact, “resistant”
stepchildren are often struggling children. If children are having trouble, assess for: unat-
tended losses, loyalty binds, the pace of change, premature stepparent discipline, and
ex-spouse tension and conflict. Increase reliable parent–child one-to-one time (balancing
with couple time). Ease stepparents out of discipline and support authoritative parenting
by the parent. Strengthen parent–child attunement. Work on lowering ex-spouse tension
and badmouthing.
Pushing Parents and Stepparents to “Get on the Same Page”

Stepcouples are often advised to create a slate of jointly agreed-upon rules. This seduc-
tive strategy often includes urging parents to support stepparents’ limit-setting, which
pushes stepparents into a premature disciplinary role. In addition, stepfamily structure so
often puts parents and stepparents in opposing positions that differences over parenting
are more usefully placed among Christensen and Jacobson’s “irreconcilable differences”
(Christensen & Jacobson, 1998) or Gottman’s “perpetual problems” (Gottman & Levenson,
1999). Again, the goal is not to agree, but to communicate respectfully.
GENERAL CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR WORKING WITH STEPFAMILY

RELATIONSHIPS
I find that who the clinician sees, the particular challenge that becomes the focus, and
the duration of therapy vary enormously with stepfamilies. I focus the work on whatever
challenge clients bring, with the caveat that children’s challenges are sometimes “hidden”
in complaints of “bad behavior.” That said, for adults, insider/outsider and parenting chal-
lenges do tend to show up early, stick around in softer form for the duration, and recur at
major family transitions. Some referrals start in one place (for instance, around a child),
and then move among all subsystems, interspersed with occasional individual work. In

44 / FAMILY PROCESS
other cases, the client remains the couple or an individual adult stepfamily member who
has come for therapy.
Occasionally, the need can be met with a few sessions of psychoeducation. Very often,
however, I find that this work weaves among all three levels over several years. In many
of my stepfamily cases, clients move in and out of therapy. They meet some of their chal-
lenges and find some stability. Then family events may intensify a challenge, or hit old
bruises, and they return for more help.
That said, here are some clinical guidelines:
Work in Subsystems or Individually

Family therapists are often advised to see whole families together. To quote Froma
Walsh, “A family systems approach is distinguished less by who is in the therapy room
and more by the clinician’s attention to relationships and systemic patterns in assessment
and intervention” (2012, p. 44). As we have seen, in stepfamilies, meeting basic attach-
ment needs in one subsystem very often leaves someone in another subsystem feeling
deserted. For this reason, again, my stepfamily colleagues and I agree, family therapy
with stepfamilies proceeds best in subsystems (Browning, 2017; Browning & Artfelt, 2012;
Papernow, 2013, 2015b).
When the referral is for family therapy, I usually start with the adult couple. The work
may then move back and forth with strengthening parent–child relationships, meeting
with siblings and/or stepsiblings, and, if necessary, with ex-spouses. Until attachment
needs are being met in the parent–child and couple subsystems, I find that bringing a
whole stepfamily together can actually be more destructive than helpful. Once the couple
and parent–child subsystems are working well, meeting with the whole family can be very
fruitful. Note that, in my experience, unless the child experiences the stepparent as a pri-
mary source of attachment, working with stepparent–stepchild relationships usually
needs to come last. (See Papernow, 2017, in this issue, for step-by-step work with late-life
recouplers and their adult children.)
With child referrals, as we have seen, I usually like to begin with the adult stepcouple,
normalizing stepfamily challenges, helping them grasp children’s experience, shifting
them away from straining to “blend,” encouraging more one-to-one time for all subsytems
(couple, parent–child, and stepparent–child relationships), easing stepparents out of disci-
pline, and deepening compassion across the couple’s insider/outsider challenge. In child
referrals, strengthening parent–child relationships is almost always key. Again, if co-par-
enting tension is impacting children, lowering adult conflict is critical to child wellbeing.
Again, although I generally recommend that child referrals be channeled into couple, par-
ent–child, and other systemic work, in my experience, individual child therapy can be very
helpful to kids in families with chronic parental conflict.
Think Systemically
Systemic work does not require the whole family to be present (Tramonti & Fanali,
2015; Walsh, 2012). However, thinking systemically is both essential and challenging for
clinicians working with stepfamily relationships. The more a stepfamily is struggling, the
less awareness each member carries of the others’ suffering. When a parent complains
about a harsh stepparent, hold your own compassion for the stuck outsider’s painful posi-
tion. When a stepparent complains about “wimpy” parents, remember the stuck insider
parent’s pain. In practice, empathize with the feelings created by the structure, not with
the negative characterization of other players: “It’s so painful to feel so torn between the
people you love.” Not: “Clearly your wife is a borderline.”
PAPERNOW / 45
Begin with the First Two Levels
The intensity and dysregulation created by stepfamily challenges can easily lead some
individual therapists to move directly to the intrapsychic level. However, starting with,
“What in your history makes this so difficult?” is shaming. It ignores the power of stepfam-
ily challenges to generate intense feelings in the sanest human. It also ignores the calming
effect of learning what’s normal and what works, and of improving interpersonal prac-
tices. Begin with the first two levels. If information doesn’t stick, skills don’t hold, or reac-
tivity remains high or low, then begin exploring family-of-origin dynamics or
intergenerational legacies that are being activated by stepfamily challenges.
Intrapsychic Family-of-Origin Work in Systemic Therapy

When working with couples, because I have substantial trauma training, I am comfort-
able doing individual family-of-origin work. When possible, I prefer to do this with the
partner in the room as I find that witnessing a partner’s individual work can significantly
deepen compassion at tough moments. (Note: Individual adult family-of-origin work is not
appropriate in the presence of children.) It is essential to contract with the listener for
safety (Herbine-Blank, Kerpelman, & Sweezy, 2016): “The listener role can actually be
really demanding! It requires that you listen without interrupting. Let’s think together
about how that will be for you.” “I will try to keep my eye on you, but can we agree on a sig-
nal if you start to get flooded and find that you can’t listen?” Especially critical: “Do you
feel you can leave it entirely to your partner to bring up this work up outside the office?
This means promising to never, ever, use what you learn here in a fight!”
If either partner feels there is not sufficient safety, I am comfortable providing concur-
rent individual therapy. While some of my colleagues worry about “bias,” I consistently
find the opposite: The alliance I have built and the awareness we have developed in indi-
vidual intrapsychic work can significantly increase my effectiveness in the couples work:
“Jake, there’s that really scared kid we’re getting to know. Do you think we could help
him? Could we help him feel held by you and me so you can stay present for Eva?” If we
begin by working individually, as safety increases, I may shift to doing individual work in
the presence of both partners.
For therapists without substantial trauma training, a referral will sometimes be neces-
sary for work on this level. Because these are such divisive systems, maintaining extre-
mely close collaboration between therapists is essential in stepfamily work. Whenever
possible I ask that colleagues secure releases so that we can provide each other with an
email or voice mail after almost every session. Although I generally prefer to avoid the
chaos of multiple therapists involved with the same system, in highly traumatized com-
plex systems, a team of therapists working closely together can be a godsend.
Increase Public Stepfamily Education

Considerable research shows that marriage and parenting education programs can pro-
vide an effective, low-cost avenue to family wellbeing, even, sometimes especially, for dis-
tressed populations (Amato, 2014; Doty, Davis, & Arditi, 2017; Markman & Rhoades,
2012; McGill et al., 2016; Quirk, Strokhoff, Owen, France, & Bergen, 2014). However, gen-
eral relationship education programs do not adequately address stepfamily challenges
(Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004), (Adler-Baeder, Robertson, & Schramm, 2010).
Smart Steps (Adler-Baeder, 2007) and Together We Can (with handouts adapted for a
lower literacy rate) (Adler-Baeder & Shirer, 2007) are excellent, evidence-based programs
developed specifically for stepfamilies and fragile families, respectively. Both have proven
effective across class, racial, and ethnic lines, including with distressed couples (Lucier-

46 / FAMILY PROCESS
Greer, Adler-Baeder, Harcourt, & Gregson, 2014; Skogrand, Dansie, Higginbotham,

Davis, & Barrios-Bell, 2011). Training materials are available from http://www.stepfami
lies.info/smart-steps.php. An interactive on-line version of the rigorously researched Ore-
gon Parent Management Training Model has also been adapted for stepfamilies
(Forgatch, DeGarmo, & Beldavs, 2005). It can be accessed by stepfamilies at the National
Stepfamily Resource Center, http://www.stepfamilies.info/stepfamilyprogram/.
CONCLUSION: BECOMING A STEPFAMILY IS A PROCESS, NOT AN EVENT

The phrase “blended family” is full of the hope all humans have for caring, loving family
relationships. Stepfamilies can be healthy, happy families. However, effective clinical
work requires a solid understanding of the normal challenges created by this very differ-
ent family structure, a firm enough grasp of step dynamics to see the systemic context of
any complaint, and some knowledge of “best practices” at the psychoeducational, interper-
sonal, and intrapsychic levels. Given that 42% of Americans have a close step relationship,
this information needs to be a basic part of all clinicians’ training.
Family therapy with step relationships is most effective in subsystems, usually begin-
ning with stepcouple and/or parent–child relationships, then including stepsibling and
sometimes ex-spouse relationships. Once more secure attachment is established in couple
and parent–child relationships, whole family and stepparent–stepchild work can be very
fruitful. (Note that stepparent–stepchild work very often comes last.) Within these guideli-
nes, work with stepfamily dynamics can vary tremendously in terms of the family mem-
bers involved, the specific challenges that become the focus, the level of work, and the
time frame.
Bottom line: Becoming a stepfamily is a process, not an event. It requires time, a good
map of the territory, and some accurate “driving directions.”
REFERENCES
Adamson, K., & Johnson, S. K. (2013). An updated and expanded meta-analysis of nonresident fathering and
child well-being. Family Process, 27, 589–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033786
Adler-Baeder, F. (2007). Smart steps: Embrace the journey. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Retrieved from http://www.stepfamilies.info/smart-steps.php
Adler-Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage and stepfamily formation for marriage
education. Family Relations, 53, 448–458.
Adler-Baeder, F., Robertson, A., & Schramm, D. G. (2010). Conceptual framework for marriage education pro-
grams for stepfamily couples with considerations for socioeconomic context. Marriage and Family Review, 46,
300–322.
Adler-Baeder, F., Russell, C., Lucier-Greer, M., Bradford, A., Kerpelman, J., Pittman, J. et al. (2010). Thriving in
stepfamilies: Exploring competence and well-being among African American youth. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 46, 396–398.
Adler-Baeder, F., & Schramm, D. (2006). Examining and building the empirical knowledge on African American
and Hispanic/Latino families. Invited symposium presentation at the 2006 National Council on Family Rela-
tions.
Adler-Baeder, F., & Shirer, K. (2011). Coparenting interventions for unmarried parents. In J. McHale & K. Lun-
dahl (Eds.), Coparenting: Research, theory, and implications for policy. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy (2011). Guidelines for court-involved therapy. Family Court
Review, 49, 564–581.
Ahrons, C. (2007). Family ties after divorce: Long-term implications for children. Family Process, 46(1), 53–65.
Amato, P. R. (2014). Does social and economic disadvantage moderate the effects of relationship education on
unwed couples: An analysis of data from the building strong families. Family Relations, 63(3), 343–355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12069
Amato, P. R., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s relations with parents and
subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222–235.
PAPERNOW / 47
Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00703.x
Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557–573.
Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father–child contact from 1976 to
2002. Family Relations, 58, 41–53.
Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 91–102.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. (1999). Turning points in the development of blended family
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(3), 291–313.
Benson, J., & Coleman, M. (2016). Older adults developing a preference for living apart together. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 78, 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12292
Berger, R. (1998). Stepfamilies: A multi-dimensional perspective. New York: Haworth Press.
Bray, J. (1999). From marriage to remarriage and beyond: Findings from the Developmental Issues in Stepfami-
lies Research Project. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A
risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 263–273). New York: Erlbaum.
Bray, J., & Kelly, J. (1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage and parenting in the first decade. New York: Broadway
Brooks.
Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. F. (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults,
1990-2010. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(6), 731–741.
Browning, S. C., & Artfelt, E. (2012). Stepfamily therapy: A 10-step clinical approach. Washington, DC: APA
Books.
Browning, S. W. (2017). Clinical theory and intervention for stepfamilies. In S. W. Browning & B. van Eeden-
Moorefield (Eds.), Contemporary families at the nexus of research and practice (pp. 69–84). New York: Rout-
ledge.
Buchanan, C. M., & Heiges, K. L. (2001). Effects of postdivorce conflict on children. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fin-
cham (Eds.), Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and application (pp. 337–362).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the
United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29–41.
Bumpass, L., Raley, R., & Sweet, J. (1995). The changing character of stepfamilies: Implications of cohabitation
and nonmarital childbearing. Demography, 32, 425–436.
Burton, L. M., & Hardaway, C. R. (2012). Low-income mothers as “other mothers” to their romantic partners’ chil-
dren: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51(3), 343–359.
Cartwright, C. (2008). Resident parent–child relationships in stepfamilies. In J. Pryor (Ed.), International hand-
book of stepfamilies: Policy, and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 208–230). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cartwright, C. (2010). Preparing to re-partner and live in a stepfamily: An exploratory investigation. Journal of
Family Studies, 16, 237–250. https://doi.org/2048/10.5172/jfs.16.3.237
Cheadle, J. E., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2010). Patterns of nonresident father contact. Demography, 47(1), 205–
225. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0084
Cherlin, A. J., & Seltzer, J. A. (2014). Family complexity, the family safety net, and public policy. The annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002716214530854
Christensen, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1998). Acceptance and change in couple therapy: A therapist’s guide to trans-
forming relationships. New York: W.W. Norton.
Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., Vespa, J., & Mosher, W. D. (2012). First marriages in the United States: Data from the
2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Report, 49, 1–22. Retrieved from:
https://jhu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/first-marriages-in-the-united-states-data-from-the-2006-2010-na
ti-2.
Coulter, R., & Hu, Y. (2015). Living apart together and cohabitation intensions in Britain. Journal of Family
Issues, 38(12), 1701–1729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x15619461
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K. D., & Gillette, P. (2014). Evaluating a couples group to
enhance father involvement in low-income families using benchmark comparison. Family Relations, 63, 356–
370. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12072
Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Helmbrecht, L. (1993). A descriptive empirical study of gay male stepfamilies. Family
Relations, 42, 256–262.
Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Lewis, C. B. (1993). Use of African-American family structures and functioning to address
the challenges of European-American post-divorce families. Family Relations, 42, 243–248.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging
themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 43(1), 31–63.

48 / FAMILY PROCESS
de Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Remarriage, unmarried cohabitation, living apart together: Partner relationships fol-
lowing bereavement or divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 236–243.
Deutsch, R., & Pruett, M. K. (2009). Child adjustment and high conflict divorce. In R. M. Galatzer-Levy & L.
Krauss (Eds.), The scientific basis of custody decisions (2nd ed., pp. 353–374). New York: Wiley.
Doty, J. L., Davis, L., & Arditi, S. A. (2017). Cascading resilience: Leveraging points in promoting parent and
child well-being. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12175
Drozd, L., Saini, M., & Oleson, N. (Eds.) (2016). Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, J. (2002). The adjustment of children in stepfamilies: Lessons from community studies. Child & Adolescent
Mental Health, 7(4), 154–161.
El-Sheikh, M., Buckhalt, J. A., Cummings, E. M., & Keller, P. (2007). Sleep disruptions and emotional insecurity
are pathways of risk for children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(1), 88–96.
Faroo, F. (2012). Remarriage in the Malay community: An exploration of expectations and adjustments to stepfam-
ily living. Singapore: Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS).
Fishbane, M. D. (2013). Loving with the brain in mind: Neurobiology and couple therapy. New York: Norton.
Forgatch, M. S., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. (2005). An efficacious theory-based intervention for stepfamilies.
Behavior Therapy, 36, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0225-6. For stepfamily members, see
Retrieved from http://www.stepfamilies.info/stepfamilyprogram/
Fraenkel, P. (2011). Sync your relationship, save your marriage. New York: MacMillan.
Fromme, D. (2017). Stepparenting the grieving child: Cultivating past and present connections with children who
have lost a parent. Castle Rock, CO: Merry Dissonance Press.
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2017a). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions (2nd
ed.). New York: Springer.
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2017b). Studying stepfamilies: Four eras of family scholarship. Family Process,
57(1), 7–24.
Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & Jamison, T. (2011). Patterns of stepchild-stepparent relationship development. Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family, 73, 396–413.
Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2011). Family characteristics, custody arrangements, and
adolescent psychological well-being after lesbian mothers break up. Family Relations, 60, 572–585. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00667.x
Golish, T. D. (2003). Stepfamily communications strengths: Understanding the ties that bind. Human Communi-
cation Research, 29, 41–80.
Gonzalez, M., Jones, D., & Parent, J. (2014). Coparenting experiences in African American families: An examina-
tion of single mothers and their nonmarital coparents. Family Process, 53, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.
12063
Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The natural principles of love. Family Process, 9, 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jftr.12182
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of
alternative models. Family Process, 38, 143–158.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Random House.
Greenberg, L. R., & Lebow, J. L. (2016). Putting it all together: Effective intervention planning for children and
families. In L. Drozd, M. Saini, & N. Oleson (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family
court (2nd ed., pp. 555–584). New York: Oxford University Press.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2001). Interparental conflict and child development: Theory, research, and appli-
cation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gurman, A., Lebow, J., & Snyder, D. (Eds.) (2015). Clinical handbook of couple therapy, fifth edition. New York:
Guilford.
Halford, K., Nicholson, J., & Sanders, M. (2007). Couple communication in stepfamilies. Family Process, 46, 471–
483.
Herbine-Blank, T., Kerpelman, D. M., & Sweezy, M. (2016). Intimacy from the inside out: Courage and compas-
sion in couple therapy. New York: Routledge.
Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a
focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39–56.
Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Family functioning and the adjustment of siblings in diverse types of stepfamilies.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial 259, 64(4), 1–25.
Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters, what does not? Five perspectives on
the association between marital transitions and children’s adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167–184.
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: Norton.
Jensen, T. M., Lippold, M. A., Mills-Koonce, R., & Fosco, G. M. (2017). Stepfamily relationship quality and chil-
dren’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12284
PAPERNOW / 49
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The impact of parental remarriage on children: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family
Review, 40(4), 75–98.
Johnson, S. (2008). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Johnson, S. (2013). Love sense. New York: Little Brown.
Johnson, S. M., O’Connor, E., & Tornello, S. L. (2016). Gay and lesbian parents and their children. In L. Drozd,
M. Saini, & N. Oleson (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (2nd ed., pp.
514–532). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 39, 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200008000-
00007
Kim, H. (2010). Exploratory study of the factors affecting marital satisfaction among remarried Korean couples.
Families in Society: The Journal of Concemporary Social Sciences, 91, 193–200.
King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident
fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00304.x
King, V. (2007). When children have two mothers: Relationships with nonresident mothers, stepmothers, and
fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1178–1193.
King, V. (2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and step-
fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954–968.
Kinniburgh-White, R., Cartwright, C., & Seymour, F. (2010). Young adults’ narratives of relational development
with stepfathers. Journal of Personal Relationships, 27, 1–19.
Lee, W. Y., Nakamura, S., Chung, M., Chun, Y. J., Fu, M., Liang, S. C. et al. (2013). Asian couples in negotiation:
A mixed-method observational study of cultural variations across five Asian regions. Family Process, 52(3),
499–518.
Lucier-Greer, M., Adler-Baeder, F., Harcourt, K., & Gregson, K. D. (2014). Relationship education for stepcouples
reporting relationship instability—Evaluation of the Smart Steps: Embrace the Journey curriculum. Journal
of Marriage and Family Therapy, 40(4), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12069
Luyckx, K., Tildesley, E. A., Soenens, B., Andrews, J. A., Hampson, S. E., Peterson, M. et al. (2011). Parenting
and trajectories of children’s maladaptive behaviors: A 12-year prospective community study. Journal of Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 40(3), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.563470
Lynch, J. M. (2005). Becoming a stepparent in gay/lesbian stepfamilies. Journal of Homosexuality, 48(1), 45–60.
Maher, N. E., Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., Winslow, E. B., Moran, J.A., & Weinstock, D. (2016). How do parent-
ing time and interparental conflict affect the relations of quality of parenting and child well-being following
divorce? In L. Drozd, M. Saini, & N. Oleson (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family
court (2nd ed., pp. 63–73). New York: Oxford University Press.
Malia, S. E. C. (2008). How relevant are U.S. family and probate laws to stepfamilies? In J. Pryor (Ed.), Interna-
tional handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research, and clinical environments (pp. 545–
572). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Markman, H. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). Relationship education research: Current status and future directions.
Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 38(1), 169–200.
Markman, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The premarital communi-
cation roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24
(3), 289–298.
Martinez, G. M., Daniels, K., & Chandra, A. (2012). Fertility of men and women aged 15–44 years in the United
States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010 [Table 12]. National Health Statistics Reports, 51.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/
nhsr051.pdf
McGill, J., Adler-Baeder, F., Bradford, A. B., Kerpelman, J., Ketring, S. A., & Sollie, D. (2016). The role of rela-
tional instability on individual and partner outcomes following partner relationship education participation.
Family Relations, 65, 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12201
McHale, J., Waller, M. R., & Pearson, J. (2012). Coparenting interventions for fragile families: What do we know
and where do we need to go next? Family Process, 51(3), 284–306.
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Mincy, R. B., & Donahue, E. (2010). Fragile families: Introducing the issue. The
Future of Children, 20(2), 3–16.
National Stepfamily Resource Center. Skills for stepfamilies. Oregon Center for Applied Services Online. Auburn,
AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.stepfamilies.info/stepfamilyprogram/
Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011). The myth of evidence-based practice: Towards evidence-informed practice.
British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1176–1197. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq149
Nielsen, A. C. (2017). From couple therapy 1.0 to a comprehensive model: A roadmap for sequencing and integrat-
ing systemic, psychodynamic, and behavioral approaches in couple therapy. Family Process, 56(3), 540–557.

50 / FAMILY PROCESS
Nozawa, S. (2015). Remarriage and stepfamilies. In S. R. Quah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of families in Asia
(pp. 345–358). London: Routledge.
Nozawa, S., & Kikuchi, M. (2013). Five patterns of stepchild-stepparent relationship development in Japan: Young
adult stepchildren’s views. Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand (SAANZ) Conference, University
of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pace, G. T., Shafer, K., Jensen, T. M., & Larson, J. H. (2015). Stepparenting issues and relationship quality: The
role of clear communication. Journal of Social Work, 15(1), 24–44.
Papernow, P. L. (1987). Thickening the “middle ground”: Dilemmas and vulnerabilities of remarried couples. Psy-
chotherapy, 24(3S), 630–639.
Papernow, P. L. (1993). Becoming a stepfamily: Patterns of developmental in remarried families. New York: Tay-
lor & Francis.
Papernow, P. L. (2008). A clinician’s view of “stepfamily architecture”. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international hand-
book of stepfamilies (pp. 423–454). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Papernow, P. L. (2013). Surviving and thriving in stepfamily relationships: What works and what doesn’t. New
York: Routledge.
Papernow, P. L. (2014). Providing evidence-based help to stepfamilies. Brown University Child and Adolescent
Behavior Letter. March, 2014, 30(3), ISSN 1058-1073. Online ISSN 1556-7575Wiley.
Papernow, P. L. (2015a). Introduction to the Japanese translation: What is similar and what is different about
Japanese stepfamilies? In S. Nakamura, M. Ohnishi, & Y. Yoshikawa (Trans.), Suteppu famiri wo ikani iki,
hagukumuka: Umakuikukoto ikanaikoto [Surviving and thriving in stepfamily relationships: What works and
what doesn’t] (pp. iii–ix). Tokyo: Kongo Shuppan.
Papernow, P. L. (2015b). Therapy with couples in stepfamilies. In A. Gurman, J. Lebow, & D. Snyder (Eds.), Clin-
ical handbook of couple therapy (5th ed., pp. 467–488). New York: Guilford.
Papernow, P. L. (2016a). Empathic joining. In G. R. Weeks, S. T. Fife, & C. M. Peterson (Eds.), Techniques for the
couple therapist: Essential interventions from the experts (pp. 137–141). New York: Routledge.
Papernow, P. L. (2016b). The remarriage triangle: Working with later-life recouplers and their grown children.
Psychotherapy Networker, 2016, 49–53.
Papernow, P. L. (2016c). Soft/Hard/Soft communication. In G. R. Weeks, S. T. Fife, & C. M. Peterson (Eds.), Tech-
niques for the couple therapist: Essential interventions from the experts (pp. 69–72). New York: Routledge.
Papernow, P. L. (2016d). Suteppufamiri tokuyuu no rinshoutekikadai: Rinshouka ga shitteokubekikoto [The
unique clinical issues of stepfamilies: What therapists need to know] (M. Onishi, Trans.). Kazokuryouhou
Kennkyuu [Japanese Journal of Family Therapy], 33(2), 184–188.
Papernow, P. L. (2017). Recoupling in mid-life and beyond: From love at last to not so fast. Family Process, 57(1),
52–69.
Parker, K. (2011). A portrait of stepfamilies. Pew Social & Demographic Trends. Retrieved from http://wwwlpew
socialtrends.org/2011/01/13/a-portrait-of-stepfamilies/
Pasley, K., & Garneau, C. (2012). Remarriage and stepfamily life. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (4th
ed., pp. 28–54). New York: Guilford.
Pasley, K., & Moorefield, B. (2004). Stepfamilies: Changes and challenges. In L. Ganong & M. Coleman (Eds.),
Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 317–330). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist,
64(8), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.64.8.727
Porges, S. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communica-
tion, and self-regulation. In Norton series on interpersonal neurobiology (1st ed., pp. 313–314). New York:
Norton.
Pruett, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why father need is as essential as mother need. New York: Free Press.
Pruett, M. K., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Pradhan, L., Robins, S., & Pruett, K. D. (2016). Supporting father
involvement in the context of separation and divorce. In L. Drozd, M. Saini, & N. Oleson (Eds.), Parenting
plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (2nd ed., pp. 84–117). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Pruett, M. K., Ebling, R., & Insabella, G. (2004a). Critical aspects of parenting plans for young children: Interject-
ing data into the debate about overnights. Family Court Review, 42, 39–59.
Pruett, M. K., McIntosh, J. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2014). Parental separation and overnight care of young children,
Part I: Consensus through theoretical and empirical integration. Family Court Review, 52(2), 240–255.
Pryor, J. (2004). Resilience in stepfamilies. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
Pryor, J. (2008). International handbook of stepfamilies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Quirk, K., Strokhoff, J., Owen, J. J., France, T., & Bergen, C. (2014). Relationship education in community set-
tings: Effectiveness with distressed and non-distressed low-income racial minority couples. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 40, 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfmt.12080
PAPERNOW / 51
Raymo, J. M., Iwasawa, M., & Bumpass, L. (2004). Marital dissolution in Japan: Recent trends and patterns.
Demographic Research, 11(14), 395–419.
Scheinkman, M., & Fishbane, M. D. (2004). The vulnerability cycle: Working with impasses in couple therapy.
Family Process, 43, 279–299.
Schore, A. N. (2016). Affect regulation and the origin of the self. New York: Routledge.
Schrodt, P. (2006). The Stepparent Relationship Index: Development, validation, and associations with stepchil-
dren’s perceptions of stepparent communication, competence and closeness. Personal Relationships, 13, 167–
182.
Shapiro, D. (2014). Stepparents and parenting stress: The roles of gender, marital quality, and views about gen-
der roles. Family Process, 53, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12062
Shapiro, D. N., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Dyadic support in stepfamilies: Buffering against depressive symptoms
among more and less experienced stepparents. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 833–838.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Skogrand, L., Dansie, L., Higginbotham, B. J., Davis, P., & Barrios-Bell, A. (2011). Benefits of stepfamily educa-
tion: One-year post program. Marriage and Family Review, 47, 146–163.
Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Helping couples fight for their marriages. In R. Berger
& M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy (pp. 279–303). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/
Mazel.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commitment: Insights on the
foundations for relationship success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659–675.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent
adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(1), 19–36.
Stewart, S. D. (2007). Brave new stepfamilies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stykes, B., & Guzzo, K. B. (2015). Remarriage and stepfamilies (FP-15-10). National Center for Family & Mar-
riage Research. Retrieved from http://bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family/profiles/stykes-guzzo-remarriage-
stepfamilies-fp-15-10.html
Stykes, J. (2012). Nonresident father visitation (FP-12-02). Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family and
Marriage Research. Retrieved from www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/
documents/FP/FP-12-02.pdf
Tai, L. Y.-T. (2005). The making of the second spring: The experiences of remarriage in Hong Kong. In K. P. H.
Young (Ed.), Marriage, divorce, remarriage (pp. 191–219). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.
Teachman, J. (2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 70, 294–305.
Tramonti, F., & Fanali, A. (2015). Toward an integrative model for systemic therapy with individuals. Journal of
Family Psychotherapy, 26(3), 178–189.
van Eeden-Moorefield, B., & Pasley, B. K. (2012). Remarriage and stepfamily life. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush
(Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (3rd ed., pp. 517–546). New York: Springer.
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. (1979). Stepfamilies: A guide to working with stepparents and stepchildren. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. (1996). Therapy with stepfamilies. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Vogel, S. H. (2013). The Japanese family in transition: From the professional housewife ideal to the dilemmas of
choice. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children,
20(2), 87–112.
Walsh, F. (2012). Clinical views of family normality, health, and dysfunction: From a deficits to a strengths per-
spective. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (4th ed., pp. 28–54). New York: Guilford.
Webber, R. (2003). Making stepfamilies work: Step-relationships in Singaporean stepfamilies. Asia Pacific Jour-
nal of Social Work and Development, 13, 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650993.2003.9755930
White, L., & Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children have two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers and
noncustodial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155–167.
Whiteside, M. (1988). Creation of family identity through ritual performance in early remarriage. In E. Imber-
Black, J. Roberts, & R. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals in family therapy (pp. 276–304). New York: Norton.

PAPERNOW, P CLINICA GUIDELINES.. FP 57 Buscar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAPERNOW, P CLINICA GUIDELINES.. FP 57 Buscar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAPERNOW, P CLINICA GUIDELINES.. FP 57 Buscar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Guidelines for Working With Stepfamilies:

What Family, Couple, Individual, and Child

Fam Proc 57:25–51, 2018

S tepfamilies must form intimate relationships within a profoundly different infrastruc-

*Director, Institute for Stepfamily Education, Hudson, MA.

HOW STEPFAMILIES ARE DIFFERENT

First-Time Family Structure

A MAP FOR CLINICAL WORK WITH STEPFAMILIES: FIVE CHALLENGES AND

Five Challenges Created by Stepfamily Structure

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

couples, as well as some data about non-Western stepfamilies, drawing particularly on my

Three Levels of Clinical Work

FIRST CHALLENGE: INSIDER/OUTSIDER POSITIONS ARE INTENSE. AND THEY

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Cultural Forces Impact the Insider/Outsider Challenge

Meeting Insider/Outsider Challenges

Practice repair and apology. “I was sharp. So sorry!”

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

SECOND CHALLENGE: CHILDREN STRUGGLE WITH LOSSES, LOYALTY BINDS,

Helping Children Thrive in Stepfamilies

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

THIRD CHALLENGE: PARENTING TASKS CAN DIVIDE PARENTS AND

Meeting the Challenges of Parenting, Stepparenting, and Discipline in Stepfamilies

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

FOURTH CHALLENGE: STEPFAMILIES MUST BUILD A NEW FAMILY CULTURE

Helping Stepfamilies Deal with Differences While Building a New Culture

FIFTH CHALLENGE: OTHER PARENTS OUTSIDE THE HOUSEHOLD ARE PART OF

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Legal Practices and Cultural Norms Impact Co-Parenting Challenges

Supporting Positive Co-Parenting across Households

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

SOME EASY WRONG TURNS FOR WELL-MEANING CLINICIANS

Pathologizing Children’s Distress

Pushing Parents and Stepparents to “Get on the Same Page”

GENERAL CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR WORKING WITH STEPFAMILY

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Work in Subsystems or Individually

Intrapsychic Family-of-Origin Work in Systemic Therapy

Increase Public Stepfamily Education

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Greer, Adler-Baeder, Harcourt, & Gregson, 2014; Skogrand, Dansie, Higginbotham,

CONCLUSION: BECOMING A STEPFAMILY IS A PROCESS, NOT AN EVENT

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, March, 2018

You might also like