Stepchildren Claiming Stepparents

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the concept of stepchild claiming stepparents as parental figures or as kin. By examining the process of stepchildren claiming stepparents’ as kin, we sought to explore the properties of the concept of stepchild claiming. From in-depth interviews of 26 stepchildren, we proposed a conceptual analysis of stepchild claiming, identifying eight properties of stepchildren claiming stepparents as kin/parents: degree of claiming (identity conviction), degree of intentionality, timing in life, mindfulness/awareness of others, naming, seeking public recognition, using biological parents as benchmarks, and identifying with the stepparent. The results of this study contribute to an understanding of constructed kinship relationships in diverse families.

Keywords

claiming relationships stepchild stepparent

“Family life in the United States involves more transitions than anywhere else” (Cherlin, 2009, p. 19). Some of these transitions result in stepfamilies; 5.6 million children in the United States lived with a stepparent in 2009 (Manning, Brown, Lamidi, & Payne, 2014) and 13% of U.S. children in married two-adult households are stepchildren to one of the adults (Kennedy & Fitch, 2012). One third of U.S. adults younger than 30 years have a stepparent, and 42% of all adults have at least one step-relative (Pew Research Center, 2011). Estimates in other Western nations suggest that step-relationships are widespread (Allan, Crow, & Harker, 2013; Beier, Hofäcker, Marchese, & Rupp, 2010).

Most stepchildren adjust to family transitions, but a consistent research finding is that they are at greater risk for interpersonal and developmental problems than are children living with both biological parents and are often comparable to children in single-parent households (Amato, 2010; Sweeney, 2010). To understand these findings, several researchers have examined stepfamily processes that may affect stepchildren and stepfamilies (e.g., King, Amato, & Lindstrom, 2015; King, Boyd, & Thorsen, 2015).

Some researchers see the relationships between stepparents and stepchildren as among the key predictors of stepchildren’s well-being (King, 2006, 2007, 2009; Schrodt, 2006). Consequently, recent research on stepfamilies often has focused on stepparent–stepchild relationships (e.g., Ganong, Coleman, & Jamison, 2011; King, 2007; King, Amato, et al., 2015), although parent–child relationships have been examined as well (e.g., King, 2006, 2007, 2009; King, Amato, et al., 2015).

Stepfamily researchers have examined relationship quality and closeness (Jensen & Shafer, 2013; King, Amato, et al., 2015; King, Thorsen, & Amato, 2014), feelings of belonging (Brown & Manning, 2009; King, Boyd, et al., 2015; Leake, 2007), and feelings of mattering to stepparents (Schenck et al., 2009). In other studies, the various types of step-relationships that are formed have been explored, ranging from parent-like to nearly nonexistent (e.g., Ganong et al., 2011). An underexamined phenomenon relevant to understanding stepparent–stepchild relationships is claiming (Coleman, Ganong, Russell, & Frye-Cox, 2015; Marsiglio, 2004).

A better understanding of the dynamics of stepchildren claiming stepparents would be enlightening to researchers and useful to practitioners who work with stepfamilies. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the concept of stepchild claiming stepparents as kin. Our guiding research question was the following: “What are the properties of the concept of stepchild claiming stepparents as kin?” By examining stepchildren’s experiences of claiming stepparents’ as kin, we sought to unpack and thoroughly examine this phenomenon.

Claiming is not the same phenomenon as closeness, family belonging, or mattering, concepts investigated in recent stepchild–stepparent relationship research (e.g., Brown & Manning, 2009; Jensen & Shafer, 2013; King, Amato, et al., 2015; King, Boyd, et al., 2015; King et al., 2014; Leake, 2007; Schenck et al., 2009). Although these phenomena are likely related to each other, and even conceptually overlapping in meaning, we think they are different. For one thing, claiming as kin does not necessarily imply emotional warmth and closeness (Marsiglio, 2004). Kinship may imply a degree of emotional connectivity, but not necessarily warmth, nor even cohesion. Individuals claimed as kin may have difficult or even conflictual bonds, and there may even be some emotional distance (Marsiglio, 2004). Claiming likely also is different from feelings of family belonging. Family belonging, or feeling included as part of the family unit, refers to a sense of membership in a family unit. Belonging has more in common conceptually with cohesion and closeness than with claiming. Family belonging is generally associated with having positive and close ties with the group. Emotional distance or conflict have not been understood as part of this concept. In stepfamilies, feelings of belonging encompass more than just step-relationships; biological parents, siblings, and extended kin may also contribute to a stepchild’s feelings of family belonging (King, Boyd, et al., 2015). Finally, mattering to a stepparent can include both positive and negative interactions with stepchildren, and may be associated with conflicts as well as signs of caring and concern (Schenck et al., 2009). Therefore, both mattering and claiming are phenomena based on a wide variety of experiences and emotions. Mattering, however, refers to stepchildren’s judgments about how much their stepparents notice and are concerned about them, whereas claiming involves judgments about shared kinship with stepparents, with implications for personal, parental, and familial identity. It may be somewhat of an oversimplification, but in mattering a stepchild asks, “Do I matter to him or her?” and in claiming the question is, “Do I claim him or her?” What all of these concepts have in common, with the possible exception of emotional closeness and cohesion, is that they rarely have been studied in research on relationships among stepchildren and stepparents (Ganong & Coleman, 2017). Much more needs to be known about stepparent–stepchild relationships and how they develop and are maintained; claiming may be a useful concept in understanding these stepfamily processes.

Claiming

Claiming is a concept introduced by Marsiglio (2004), who defined claiming by stepfathers as “a state of mind and relationship orientation” that “includes emotional, psychological, practical, and often symbolic aspects of acting toward and thinking about stepchildren as their own” (p. 23). Stepfather claiming was seen as an “investment as a social father” that allowed a stepfather to meaningfully “orient himself toward stepfamily life” (p. 23). Claiming was conceptualized as an indication that the stepchild was seen as kin by the stepfather, and the attendant obligations that go with kinship bonds presumably were among the consequences of stepfather claiming. Marsiglio (2004) argued that stepfather claiming distinguished stepfathers who saw themselves as paternal figures from those who did not. Moreover, claiming was related to the assumption of a “fatherlike identity” (p. 36). Although stepfather claiming did not automatically lead to positive consequences for stepfathers or stepchildren or shelter them from negative outcomes, Marsiglio (2004) asserted that stepfathers who claimed their stepchildren were more likely to engage in behaviors that facilitated children’s development and positive interactions.

Marsiglio (2004) neither speculated about stepchildren claiming their stepparents nor studied stepchild claiming, but it seems plausible that some stepchildren engage in claiming behaviors, and there is evidence that this is the case. For instance, in a recent study of stepchild–stepparent relationships after the dissolution of a parental remarriage, stepchildren who had claimed their former stepparents as kin prior to the divorce were motivated to maintain those bonds and intentionally reached out to former stepparents (Coleman et al., 2015). In contrast, stepchildren who had never claimed the stepparent as kin and those who had once claimed the stepparent but rejected them after the divorce (disclaiming them), did little or nothing to maintain ties after the remarriage ended. There were both costs and benefits to stepchildren who claimed stepparents following remarriage dissolution (Coleman et al., 2015). Those who had continuously claimed their stepparents as kin received resources from them (e.g., money, tangible help) and provided resources to stepparents in exchange (e.g., emotional support, help with finances). Conversely, stepchildren who claimed stepparents during the remarriage but discontinued claiming them after parental divorce experienced much more difficult postdivorce transitions.

Claiming Properties

Marsiglio’s (2004) conceptual analysis of stepfather claiming delineated 10 interrelated properties relevant to this phenomenon: timing, degree of deliberateness, degree of identity conviction, paternal role range, solo-shared identity, mindfulness, propriety work, naming, seeking public recognition, and biological children as benchmarks. These properties included strategies used by men to manage relationships with stepchildren and outcomes resulting from stepfathers seeing children as their own. Properties are defined in grounded theory as “attributes or characteristics of a category” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61). Properties are not predictors but are ways in which claiming experiences varied.

Timing referred to when claiming occurred in the relationship development process—did claiming a child and assuming a father-like identity happen quickly, gradually, or in some other temporal pattern? Degree of deliberateness was closely intertwined with timing in Marsiglio’s (2004) study, and was defined by how much thought men gave to their relationships with stepchildren. For instance, some men purposefully oriented themselves as paternal figures to their stepchildren; for others, claiming seemed to unfold without intentional thought or effort. Degree of identity conviction was how fully stepfathers embraced a paternal identity regarding their stepchildren. Stepfathers varied on how committed they were to being a father to their stepchildren; some identified strongly with specific paternal roles (e.g., provider), while feeling more ambivalent about others. Sharing a residence, and time spent together in general, were related to stepfather’s degree of identity conviction. The claiming property of paternal role range was the range of opportunities men had to enact and realize father roles. This range was influenced by men’s comfort with specific roles, maternal gatekeeping, age of the stepchildren, and their reactions to stepfather’s role enactments. Somewhat relatedly, solo/shared identity was whether a man felt solely responsible for the stepchild’s well-being or felt they shared paternal responsibilities with a biological father. This was not simply an issue of biological father involvement or estrangement, because some active fathers facilitated stepfathers cosharing fatherhood. Views about solo or shared identity also had to do with the stepfather’s views about fatherhood and families. Mindfulness referred to how aware men were of their stepchildren’s needs and well-being. This property also included attentiveness and reflexive thought about the stepchildren and their relationships with the stepfather. Even when men claimed their stepchildren as their own, they found themselves in situations which reminded them that they were not legally or biologically related to the children, and, in such circumstances, they needed to consider and monitor the appropriateness of their behaviors. This was what Marsiglio (2004) called propriety work. The use of familial labels in naming was another property of claiming stepchildren. Although names used in stepfamilies do not always reflect relationship quality (Kellas, LeClair-Underberg, & Normand, 2008), the use of family labels was often associated with stepfather’s claiming (Marsiglio, 2004). Men’s encouragement of paternal labels, and their reactions when children called them paternal names, was related to stepfathers’ feelings, perceptions, and claiming experiences. Seeking public recognition referred to stepfathers seeking, accepting, and responding to the ways in which legal, educational, and other social systems recognized them as fathers to their stepchildren. For instance, adopting stepchildren creates a legal bond that was valued by some stepfathers because they could assume a paternal identity and drop the prefix “step.” Finally, when men had children, they used their relationships with biological children as benchmarks by which to compare the step-relationships. The father–child relationship was used even by stepfathers who had no children of their own—they used what they believed to be standards for biological fathers as the standard to evaluate their feelings and bonds with stepchildren.

Ambiguous Kinship

The stepchild–stepparent relationship is involuntary, in that both are in a relationship because of their separate bonds to the child’s biological or adoptive parent. The step-relationship lacks genetic connections and, in most cases, legal ties (Ganong & Coleman, 2017). In the absence of these widely recognized, traditional markers of kinship, stepchildren and stepparents generally cannot easily discern how to relate to each other and how to think about themselves in these relationships. Long ago, Cherlin (1978) wrote that remarried families were incomplete institutions, characterized by ambiguous roles and the absence of guiding norms to help them. Much of the stress of stepfamilies, according to the incomplete institution hypothesis, resulted from these ambiguities and the resulting inadequate societal support. Over the decades since Cherlin’s article was published, several studies have reported support for his hypothesis (Ganong & Coleman, 2017).

On the other hand, individuals often socially construct kinship bonds in the absence of genetic or legal bonds (Nelson, 2013). There is a large body of research on socially constructed family relationships; these relationships have been known by many labels (see Nelson [2013], for a review of labels and types of constructed kinship). There is variability in how these socially constructed kinship identities are defined, but an underlying shared dimension is the absence of legal and genetic bonds (Nelson, 2013). Although some scholars have framed stepparents as constructing kinship roles with stepchildren (e.g., Burton & Hardaway’s [2012] study of stepmothers as othermothers within stepfamilies of color), this approach has not been common. We think this perspective has promise, however, in helping to explain how stepfamily members may define and negotiate workable, satisfying bonds in the absence of facilitative social norms.

The Current Study

In this study, we examined the properties of stepchild claiming of stepparents as kin. We think of stepchild claiming as an active process and not simply as reactions to stepparents’ efforts to claim the stepchild as kin. In this study, we define a stepparent as the spouse of the stepchild’s biological parent, an adult who is not biologically related to the stepchild. Our goal was to use grounded theory methods to generate and sharpen a conceptual lens for exploring stepchild claiming of stepparents as kin. Given the need to obtain insights that young children may not be able to provide, we sampled stepchildren who were young adults.

Method

Sample

The sample of stepchildren in this study were part of a larger project on stepchildren and their family relationships, and data were collected from 2007 to 2009. Young adult stepchildren were recruited through announcements in undergraduate courses at a Midwestern university, advertisements in weekly announcements e-mailed to students, faculty, and campus staff, and word-of-mouth. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be at least 18 years of age and have one or more stepparents. We did not limit participation based on the ages in which they became stepchildren; however, we did focus the study on young adults. From previous work, we knew that many stepfamilies go through additional transitions after parents repartner. They may experience redivorce and new partnerships through either cohabitation or remarriage. We wanted to be able to discuss all stepparent relationships that someone might have before they left home in their late teens or early 20s. We also chose to interview young adults because of their capacity to reflect on and discuss the dynamics of their family relationships.

To be eligible for the current study, at least one stepparent had to have been claimed as kin. We defined stepchild claiming as actions and psychosocial orientations to stepparents that indicated the stepparent is regarded as a family member. This criterion for inclusion was evaluated by all members of the research team. First, all transcripts from 53 participants of the larger project were read by all coauthors. Two members of the research team were randomly assigned to code each stepchild as having claimed or not claimed each of their stepparents. If both coders agreed that a stepparent had been claimed as kin, that individual was included in the sample. If there were disagreements, or one or both could not decide if a stepparent had been claimed, the transcript was coded by a third researcher. If that coder did not perceive the stepchild to have claimed the stepparent, then that participant was not included in the sample. We coded a stepchild as “claiming” if they identified a stepparent as a parent (“He is the only father I had”) or parent figure (“She has raised me since I was little. She’s been there . . . ”), if they described the stepparent as a family member (“I consider him a family member”), or if they identified themselves as belonging to the stepparent (“We’re John’s little kids”).

Although nearly all of the stepchildren whose relationships with stepparents we categorized as claimed were emotionally close, some of the close stepchild–stepparent relationships were seen as friendships by the stepchildren and not as family relationships. Liking a stepparent as a friend or an acquaintance was not the same as claiming them as kin. Stepchildren who had warm, positive relationships with stepparents, but did not consider them kin, were excluded from the sample. Furthermore, claiming did not mean relationships were always warm and free of conflicts; stepchildren sometimes had conflicted or stressful relationships with the claimed stepparents.

The sample for this study included 26 stepchildren who claimed a stepparent. Seven of these stepchildren claimed more than one stepparent, so a total of 34 claimed step-relationships were analyzed in this study. These stepchildren also had ties with 19 current and former stepparents whom they had not claimed. The sample included 19 stepdaughters and 7 stepsons between the ages of 18 and 30 (M = 21) years. Most stepchildren were White (n = 21), and all had at least some college education. Nine stepchildren had one stepparent, 16 had two stepparents, and 1 stepchild had three stepparents over the course of their lives (M = 1.7). Of the stepparents who were claimed (n = 34) stepdaughters claimed 12 stepmothers and 14 stepfathers, and stepsons claimed 4 stepmothers and 4 stepfathers. At the time of their parents’ divorce, participants ranged in age from 9 months to 20 years (M = 5.3). They were between the ages of 1 and 22 years (M = 10.4) when their parent(s) remarried. The mean age for acquiring a stepfather was 9.3 years, and for acquiring a stepmother was 11.3 years.

Data Collection

Data collection procedures were consistent with a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Stepchildren were individually interviewed for 60 to 90 minutes and were asked about their relationships with every stepparent that had ever been in their family, including former stepparents. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were compensated with a $10 gift card.

The interviews began with a genogram of the participant’s family. We asked them about their parents’ separations and divorce and about the beginnings of their relationships with stepparents. We asked them to describe those step-relationships, and what individuals did, if anything, to create and sustain them. For example, we asked, “What, if anything, have you done to develop a good relationship with your stepparent? What, if anything, has your stepparent done?” We explored how they felt about their stepparents and asked if their feelings and the relationship quality had changed over time. For example, “What, if anything, has helped you to become a stepchild to your stepparent? What, if anything, has hindered this relationship? How is the current relationship with your stepparent working for you?” Interviews were guided by a basic set of questions but were flexible enough to adapt to participants’ comments and concerns. This interview style, common in grounded theory, makes it possible to obtain rich, detailed explanations of experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 2014).

Analytic Strategy

After interviews were transcribed, we individually coded transcripts line-by-line (open coding), using participants’ words to create codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Each statement was analyzed, and codes were assigned to words or phrases that represented potentially important concepts. For example, “(Name of former stepfather), he’s my daddy. He’s been there for me. He basically did earn it,” was initially assigned three codes: he’s my daddy, he’s been there for me, and he basically did earn it. The initial set of codes then were discussed by the research team and a consensus codebook was created of codes and their definitions. Using the software, Dedoose, allowed us to work collectively online, and we recoded the transcripts using the consensus codebook.

After the interviews had been coded with the consensually developed codes, we began discussing links between codes in regular team meetings, extracting general categories, and themes (axial coding; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The codebook was modified as necessary via consensus of the team. By using constant comparative analytic techniques and returning to the data to validate findings, the category definitions about stepchild claiming were grounded in stepchildren’s reports.

We used Marsiglio’s (2004) 10 properties of stepfather claiming as sensitizing concepts in the latter stages of analyses: timing, degree of deliberateness, degree of identity conviction, paternal role range, solo-shared identity, mindfulness, propriety work, naming, seeking public recognition, and biological children as benchmarks (this latter concept was reversed to be, biological parents as benchmarks). These 10 properties guided our thinking as we examined stepchildren’s descriptions of interacting with and claiming stepparents. We also utilized Marsiglio’s (2004) concepts regarding the conditions that facilitated stepfathers claiming stepchildren as their own: (a) stepfather’s identification with the stepchild, (b) stepfather’s personality, (c) birth mother’s involvement, (d) stepchildren’s perceptions and reactions, and (e) biological father’s presence and involvement, to see if they applied to stepchild claiming. As a group, the research team assessed to what extent, if any, these properties and conditions were relevant to stepchild claiming. Again, decisions were made by consensus after discussion.

Results

Properties of Stepchild Claiming of Stepparents

We identified eight properties of stepchildren claiming stepparents as kin/parents. These properties were the following: degree of claiming (identity conviction), degree of intentionality, timing in life, mindfulness/awareness of others, naming, seeking public recognition, using biological parents as benchmarks, and identifying with the stepparent.

Degree of Claiming (Identity Conviction)

Stepchildren varied in how fully they embraced a parental identity for the stepparent. Indicators of the degree to which a stepparent was claimed as kin or parent were the ways in which stepchildren described interacting with them as parents or parent-like figures. The extent to which they treated them as a parent by asking advice, seeking permissions, reaching out to the stepparent for help, trying to please the stepparent, and wanting to spend time together, varied markedly. One relevant indicator of the degree of claiming the stepparent as kin was how often the stepchild called, texted, or otherwise contacted the stepparent to connect, to just talk, or to check in with them.

For some, the stepparent was a replacement or substitute for an absent, deceased, or unloving parent (“He is the only father I had”). Stepchildren who changed their last names, sought to be adopted, and in many other ways demonstrated their desire for the stepparent to be one of their parents were among this group. Stepchildren demonstrated stepparents’ status as parents and trusted family members by seeking their support and guidance. For example, several stepchildren considered their stepfathers to be their go-to experts on fixing and purchasing cars. Faith (all names are pseudonyms) said she could call her stepfather and say, “My car is making this noise; it’s coming from here, what do you think it is?” A stepson reached out to his stepfather for advice about dating, “I talked to him [about] things that were going on with me and like a girlfriend or something. I already had a girl’s side, and I just wanted another perspective on it.” When stepchildren reached out for advice from stepparents, they also connected in other ways. As Faith said after they fixed her car problem, she and her stepfather would, “Talk for a little while, ‘How are you doing? How’s the band doing? How’s the shop going?’”

Step-relationships often are ambiguous (i.e., What are we to each other?), and even when a stepparent was claimed, there could still be a bit of uncertainty for stepchildren about the stepparent’s roles in the family. For stepchildren with involved biological parents, finding a place (i.e., a set of appropriate roles, a comfortable degree of emotional closeness) for the stepparent was relevant in the process of claiming and affected the degree to which stepparents were claimed as parental figures. These “places” often were complementary to those of parents; some stepchildren saw their stepparents and parents as “specializing” in certain aspects of their lives, and they went to them to meet different needs. Claiming involved making space for a stepparent to enact parenting roles. Ramona said, “[My stepfather] likes to fix things at my house . . . so I will save things for him when he comes in town so he has a purpose.” Stepchildren also saw that stepparents stepped up in emergencies, handling things a parent typically would. Ann recalled an event during her adolescence:

The day I was supposed to register for senior year, my mom just kind of left me at school because she didn’t want to deal with me anymore. [My stepmom] left work and came up and got me registered and did orientation with me. So she’s always been there for me.

When stepparents showed that they were willing and able to provide support like a parent might, stepchildren demonstrated trust and regard by calling and asking for help. Nancy said, “A pipe exploded in my bathroom and [my stepdad] was the first person I called. I was like, ‘Ah, I don’t know what to do!’ [laughs]”

Other stepchildren identified the stepparent as a family member, but not necessarily as a parent, and definitely not as a substitute for one of their biological parents. Stepparents were kin: “I consider him a family member.”

Degree of Intentionality

The degree to which claiming the stepparent was a conscious decision varied. For instance, for some stepchildren, claiming was the result of a deliberate and intentional process. Sometimes, this process was a relatively quick one, and sometimes not, but highly intentional claimers generally could tell us the reasons why they had decided to claim the stepparent as family (and to them, it was a decision, while for less intentional claimers, it was not). For example, Jenni explained how her mom and stepfather handled a tough battle to win custody from Jenni’s abusive biological father.

[Our mom] listened to us pour our hearts out and gave us big hugs and told us she was doing all she could to get custody of us, and we’d say “but he’s so mean, he’s so horrible!” and she never would encourage it, she just listened . . . I think that’s where the switch happened. ( . . . ) By the time I was probably 14 or 15, [my stepfather] was dad.

For others, the relationship with the stepparent gradually grew closer over time, and there was no incident or specific event or time period they could recall as critical to when or why they began to regard the stepparent as a family member. For these stepchildren, there was little intentionality in their claiming of the stepparent, which seemed to them like an organic process that progressively grew out of getting to know and care about the stepparent as they interacted over time. For example, Faith said:

I think him being around the house and being there for me, when I needed him, [and] even though he wasn’t a part of my blood family he was there when I needed something. He helped my mom with so many things, just being there for her and making her happy. By the time it came for their wedding . . . I had become essentially a part of their family as well.

For still other stepchildren who claimed a stepparent, the degree of intentionality was low because they had never known a time when “daddy Bill” had not been a father figure to them because they were so young when the stepparent entered their lives. For these stepchildren, the stepparent as parent figure was part of the world they knew, and they had no recollection of not having this person as part of their family. For them, claiming was not as intentional as for others, although when asked as young adults, they could provide rationale for why the stepparent was a parent figure to them.

Timing in Their Lives

Degree of intentionality was clearly linked to another property, timing in their lives. Stepchildren who were adolescents and young adults when the step-relationships began generally had thought about the nature and meaning of the stepparent in relation to them. Claiming for adolescents and young adults always involved a fairly high level of intentionality and was usually deliberate and carefully thought-out. Claiming by school age children was often purposeful and carefully considered as well, but the deliberations were generally simpler than for older stepchildren and often more quickly pondered. When stepchildren were younger than school age, claiming was decided for them by the adults in their lives. For example, Rebecca credited perceiving her stepmother as a mother figure to her stepmother’s early entry into her life: “We called her ‘mom’ because we were really young. Our relationship was mainly built around us just being young . . . she was always there.” Stepchildren like Rebecca had a hard time recalling life without the stepparent, and it seemed natural to them to accept the stepparent as kin.

Mindfulness/Awareness of Others

Claiming involved varying levels of mindfulness, or being aware of other family members and monitoring their responses and reactions. For stepchildren, mindfulness and awareness of others primarily referred to monitoring and being concerned about the effects of claiming on the stepparent and the biological parents. For example, stepchildren knew that claiming the stepparent would please them, which served as motivation to claim. Biological parents’ reactions were more variable and were monitored closely when both coparents were engaged in childrearing. Even when nonresidential parents had disengaged from involvement in childrearing, the stepchild was mindful of what claiming the stepparent might mean to the parent; this mindfulness also served as motivation (i.e., claiming as revenge against the parent for abandoning them, claiming as a way to hurt the nonresidential parent). Mindfulness led to stepchildren making efforts to find a place for the claimed stepparent in the family (e.g., additional father, substitute mother) that they perceived would be maximally beneficial for all involved parental figures.

Jenni saw how reaching out to her stepfather’s sons (her much older stepbrothers) helped strengthen her relationship with him,

I think my [step]dad is very proud that I’m starting to make a relationship with his sons, and I think that helps my relationship with my [step]dad. I think it touched my [step]dad that I made that point [to get to know them better].

Similarly, Nancy said, “I actually have gotten a lot closer to [my stepfather] this past year because his dad—who I consider my grandpa, passed away. Just being there for [my stepfather], I got to be a lot closer with him.”

Naming

Not all claiming stepchildren used family labels regularly when addressing their stepparents, but they all strategically used family terms and labels as a way to convey meanings about how they thought and felt about them. Stepchildren who regularly used family labels such as mom and dad did so often because they had known their stepparents since they were quite young. For example, Rina, in talking about a former stepfather who helped raise her, a man she still referred to as “Dad,” explained why, “He’s been there since . . . I was so little . . . that’s what I called him [since] I was little . . . it was a respect thing. My stepdad now, I don’t call him ‘Dad.’” Ramona said about her stepfather, “He was always more willing and wanting to be active in my life than my [biological] dad. So I called them both dad, but I really thought of [my stepfather] as my dad.” Use of family labels was intended to convey feelings of closeness.

Stepchildren who were older when the stepfamily began seldom used family labels until they had known the stepparent for a long time. For example, Jenni, who met her stepfather when she was in the second grade, started calling him by his first name (Doug), then a nickname (“Daddy Doug”), and then just, “Dad.” She initially did not live with her stepfather but gradually spent more time with him; the evolution of her naming reflected relationship growth and increased emotional closeness with her stepfather.

When stepchildren used family terms for stepparents who were additional parental figures and not replacements for absent parents, they had to create ways to identify which of their two fathers or two mothers they were referring to when talking with other people. Alice called her two father figures “Daddy Lee” and “Daddy Dave” when talking to her friends, and Sam stated, “Sometimes I’ll do little [finger quotation marks] ‘Alan Dad’ and ‘Bob Dad,’ when talking to friends.”

There is a difference between a stepchild who is told to call a stepparent by a family name and one who does so voluntarily. The participants above chose to use family labels, which symbolized their intention to claim the stepparent.

Changing their last names

Changing their last names without being adopted was not an option for most stepchildren. However, two stepdaughters began using their stepfathers’ last names as a symbolic claiming of them as parental figures. One changed her name legally after turning 18 years, and the other used her stepfather’s name in school and in informal social interactions throughout her childhood and adolescence. These name changes were done for pragmatic reasons, as well as to symbolically show their feelings for their stepparents. Jenni said, “I wrote an essay in high school about how parents have nothing to do with your blood and how special he was. The day I turned 18 we filed [name change] paperwork.”

Claiming in social introductions

Using family names was not the only way stepchildren used language to claim stepparents. They claimed stepparents publicly when they introduced them to others and when they talked about them with friends. Some stepchildren did not call their stepparent by a parent label at home, but they did so when introducing them to friends or acquaintances. One stepson introduced his mother and stepfather by saying, “I’ll say ‘this is my mom, Vikki, and my dad, Bill.’” Another stepchild clarified to the interviewer, “I’m not formally adopted, but I’ll tell you right now that when I say dad, I’m talking about my stepdad.” Such family labeling was one way that stepchildren showed their bond with stepparents to whom they felt close. Of course, some familial labeling was likely impression management to make informal social encounters easier, but stepchildren did not use family terms loosely even then, “When I talk to people that I don’t know very well, I call him my father. Once I get to know people, I tell them he’s my stepfather that adopted me, and I just call him Joe after that.”

Seeking Public Recognition

Stepchildren symbolically claimed stepparents in their public language and behaviors and sought concrete ways of seeking recognition of their bonds with the stepparent such as adoption. One stepdaughter talked about acknowledging her two dads as a young child: “When it was Father’s Day and you make things in school—we always did two. We always had the same thing for my stepfather as we were going to have for my dad, and would write ‘dad’ on it.” Alice described wedding plans that symbolically claimed her stepfather:

[In] our church the aisle goes for another 20 feet [after the first pew to] the altar. We’re stopping at the first pew where Mike [her stepfather] will be, and he’s going to go the rest of the way with us [her father and herself].

Seeking to be adopted

Seeking adoption is a strong indication of legally and publicly claiming the stepparent as a parent. In the state in which this study was conducted, stepparent adoption means that a parent is literally replaced by the stepparent—names are changed on birth certificates, parental rights are dissolved, and the stepparent legally becomes the parent. Four stepchildren who had an abusive or neglectful biological parent sought adoption by a stepparent. Two had already been adopted by their stepfathers, one at age 7 and the other at age 18, and two others had taken preliminary actions as adults to be adopted. The primary motivation for adoption in these situations was to claim the stepfather as parent. Sandy stated the following:

I talked to my mom first [about adoption]. She was really excited . . . so I talked to him about it, and he was very excited and flattered . . . for him it was very emotional. After the adoption went through . . . he actually cried . . . it was a big deal for him.

For Melissa, whose adoption was pending until her biological father released his parental rights, adoption was a way to legally reflect her feelings about her stepfather. Knowing that her stepdad was willing to go to court to claim her as his daughter, “showed me that he had obviously wanted me . . . ”

Adopted stepchildren psychologically felt they had replaced their fathers with their stepfathers—“He’s my father. That’s pretty well established now, so there’s . . . definitely an emotional connection . . . ” Claiming the stepparent as a replacement parent was not the only motive for adoption, but it was a major factor: “I thought, ‘If he [the stepfather] adopts me I wouldn’t have to deal with my real father anymore.’”

Using Biological Parental Roles as Benchmarks

Stepchildren used either idealized expectations for parents’ behaviors or their biological parents’ actual behaviors as benchmarks by which stepparents’ actions were assessed. Generally, when stepparents were favorably evaluated against these benchmarks, stepchildren enthusiastically claimed them as parents. Nancy described her stepfather, “I consider him more of a father figure to me now than my real father . . . I guess I just grew to trust him because he would constantly be where I needed a parent figure to be.” Beth considered her stepmother to be her mother, “It’s kind of like that mother relationship I always wanted.” Ramona, describing her first stepfather, said “I would describe my relationship with him [as] closer than I was ever with my father. He was actually around and took an active role in my life and my brother’s life.” These stepchildren had nonresidential parents who no longer fulfilled what the young adults saw as parental responsibilities toward them.

Residential stepparents, defined as those with whom they lived at least 50% of the time, had an easier time enacting parental behaviors than nonresidential stepparents who interacted more episodically with their stepchildren. Coresidence meant more contact time and greater opportunities to fulfill parental responsibilities, thereby more closely matching the benchmark of biological parents’ roles.

As noted earlier, claiming was not identical to liking, and claiming did not mean that relationships were always positive, warm, and close, just as parent–child relationships are not uniformly warm and satisfying. Using parental roles as the benchmarks, therefore, did not mean that stepchildren were always pleased with the actions of a claimed stepparent. For example, Ronda was angry with her stepfather for not helping her mother:

So yeah, I am appreciative of what he has done for us. I just think now that he’s like really become a part of our family, they have been married for a long time, he should do more. If it’s his house, then help out with the house.

Identifying With the Stepparent

In first-marriage families, all family members generally are biologically related, so intergenerational similarities are often attributed to genetics as well as to family culture. Because step-relationships cannot use genetic similarities to create shared identities, overlapping interests and shared values are critically important markers of mutual identification and bonding. Seeing parts of themselves in their stepparents motivated stepchildren to engage in bonding activities with stepparents because they felt close to them. As one stepdaughter said, “I think I kind of understand that part of her [the stepmother] because I’m kind of like that sometimes. So, on some level I guess we relate, [we are] the same person.”

Stepchildren often attributed these perceived similarities between themselves and a stepparent in terms of shared interests (e.g., ballet, sports, computers), comparable beliefs and values (“We have similar political ideas”), and similar personality dispositions to their positive relationships with their stepparents. Having similar personalities was a commonality that led them to spend time together enjoying their mutual interests, which created opportunities to bond. Bill said, “We’ve actually always been really similar . . . always shared similar interests and been able to kind of confide in one another.”

Often, parents and stepparents tried to encourage this identification, and stepchildren who identified strongly with a stepparent were responsive to the encouragement: “Because [my stepfather] went to University A, I was going to University A [because of our] family traditions.” Participating in this family tradition showed that he identified himself as a member of the stepfather’s family. A stepdaughter and her sisters picked up on their stepfather’s favorite phrases and used them in their own conversations, “He thinks it’s funny because we’re like ‘John’s little kids.’ [laughs]. ‘I mean we’re not [his kids], but we are.’” By identifying with them, stepchildren pleased stepparents and indicated to everyone they were in the stepparents’ families.

Discussion

The findings of this study contribute to a growing body of research examining the phenomenon of socially constructed family ties (Nelson, 2013). When traditional markers of kinship are absent, individuals define others as kin if they are important to them emotionally and psychologically.

Properties of Stepchild Claiming

We did not anticipate that the concept of stepchild claiming would match precisely with stepfather claiming. The family roles of parent and child are too dissimilar to expect duplicate properties for claiming by stepfathers and stepchildren. However, we found significant overlap between Marsiglio’s (2004) properties of stepfather claiming and our own findings, which suggests that these two complementary studies reveal common dimensions of a broader phenomenon that might be called kin construction. For instance, the six parallel properties—degree of claiming (identity conviction), degree of intentionality, mindfulness/awareness of others, naming, seeking public recognition, and using biological kin as benchmarks—are likely properties also to be found among other kinds of socially constructed kinship bonds.

Qualitative researchers should examine claiming dynamics among other marginalized or incompletely institutionalized relationships (e.g., othermothers, in-laws, foster parents, stepgrandparents, relationships within cohabiting households) to explore the robustness of these properties when those relationships are defined as kinship. These properties also may be applicable for genetic kin ties when families have experienced disruptions due to divorce or separation; for instance, it is conceivable that similar properties may apply for some nonresidential parent–child relationships. Taken together, Marsiglio’s (2004) study and our study represent critical steps toward understanding similarities and differences across socially constructed family ties.

Even the differences between Marsiglio’s (2004) properties of claiming and the ones found here contribute to a potential theory of socially constructed kinship. For example, stepfather claiming included whether the men saw themselves as the only fathers or as sharing fatherhood (sole or shared identity), the range of roles they played in their stepchildren’s lives (role range), timing in the relationship when claiming occurred, and considering and monitoring appropriate behaviors so as not to transgress boundaries or intrude on fathers’ roles (propriety work). Although we did not find these properties among stepchild claiming, there are some similarities within our properties: Degree of claiming by stepchildren (i.e., substitute, additional) somewhat reflects the sole versus shared identity for stepfathers, but for stepchildren, it has more to do with the extent to which they perceive two men or two women as fulfilling paternal or maternal roles. Similarly, stepfathers had a wide range of role choices to enact when claiming stepchildren, but roles seemed more categorical for stepchildren (i.e., parental, familial, nonfamilial). Timing in the life of the stepchild reflects the importance of individual development when relationships begin, whereas timing in stepfather claiming had more to do with relationship development. Finally, stepfathers’ paternal monitoring of boundaries requires being aware of oneself and others’ feelings, as does stepchildren’s mindfulness/awareness of others. Future research on other socially constructed kinship bonds should examine these somewhat-different properties to elucidate if they are related to age, family positions, or other dimensions of family roles.

Processes of Claiming

Although this study was inspired by Marsiglio’s (2004) investigation of stepfathers claiming stepchildren, the processes of claiming for stepparents and stepchildren are differentiated in two ways—the absence of control in initiating the relationship and expectations regarding the number of kin who can be in a specific family role. First, although becoming a stepparent is not entirely voluntary, stepparents control whether they become romantically involved with a parent; stepchildren have almost no control in whether they become a member of a stepfamily. Stepparents and stepchildren, therefore, begin their relationships under quite different circumstances, although neither may have voluntarily chosen to be involved with each other in a step-relationship. Stepparents have considerably more motivation to bond in these relationships, however, because they have “chosen” the biological parent as a romantic partner.

A second difference has to do with cultural values about the normative number of children and parents in families. The cultural expectation for children is to have no more than two parents (i.e., they may have one parent or none, but two is normative). This cultural expectation is codified in American family law—when a stepparent adopts, the biological nonresidential parent must lose his or her parental rights and responsibilities. Their parental status is either voluntarily relinquished or legally removed by the courts. Parents, however, can love many children; the expectation is that they will love all children in their lives relatively equally. From the stepchildren’s perspective, therefore, it might be considered more unusual to claim a stepparent as a parent-figure, especially if both biological/adoptive parents are alive and actively involved in their lives.

Step-relationships are initially formed on the basis of marriage or cohabitation, but children have agency in determining whom to include in their definition of family. The young adults in this study sometimes thought of stepparents as replacements for absent or abusive biological parents, but often they accepted them as additional parents or family members—extra adults whom they relied on for help, guidance, and support.

In addition to replacement parents, under certain conditions, stepchildren create a place for stepparents in the parental subsystem, as substitutes or bonus parents. Studies of large secondary data sets have repeatedly found that stepparents are often seen as substitutes or additional parents (e.g., King, 2006, 2009) and qualitative investigations (e.g., Ganong et al., 2011), including the present study, shed light on the processes that contribute to stepchild claiming. In our study, stepchild claiming reflected the relationship-building efforts between stepparents and stepchildren. Stepparents in these families often engaged in years of affinity-building behaviors that indirectly promoted stepchild claiming. Stepchildren perceived their role in the step-relationship as responding to, rather than initiating, the affinity-building efforts of their stepparents. Those who responded positively often cited having something in common with the stepparent, or that the stepparent was a reliable, loving adult. These realizations led them to think of the stepparent as having a relevant place in the constellation of people they considered as kin, and their biological parents allowed this process to unfold or encouraged it.

As with the properties of claiming, the conditions relevant to stepchild claiming in this study generally mirrored the conditions that influenced stepfather claiming (Marsiglio, 2004). These dynamics indicate that claiming, and the broader phenomenon of kinship construction, are not solely under the control of either the claimer or the claimed. Instead, these findings indicate that interested third parties (e.g., biological parents) also play crucial roles, and that the individuals involved are cognizant of these interested third parties, their wants and needs, and their reactions to kinship claiming. These dynamics have been reflected in other studies of voluntary kinship (e.g., Burton & Hardaway, 2012; Coleman et al., 2015), and future research on the phenomenon of kinship claiming with other types of relationships should continue to examine the social influence of others on this phenomenon. It seems likely that similar conditions operate with other types of voluntary kin relationships, but this is an empirical issue that can be answered with additional studies, thus contributing to a process model of kinship claiming that may be widely applicable.

Shared residence also was a condition that may have affected claiming. Although about half of these stepchildren’s nonresidential stepparents were claimed (11 of 21), more than twice as many residential stepparents were claimed as were unclaimed (23 claimed, 10 not claimed). The proximity which comes from sharing a residence much of the time may make it easier for stepparents to exhibit kinship-like behaviors, do positive things for stepchildren, and frequently engage in interactions that promote stepchild claiming. Sharing a household may make it easier and more likely for stepparents to emulate parental actions, which may in turn facilitate stepchildren thinking of them as kin. Our findings suggest, however, that claiming involves processes that go beyond time spent together or shared space.

Gender is another contextual factor that might be expected to influence claiming behaviors. If nothing else, stepchildren are more likely to live with stepfathers and, therefore, spend more time with them. Although both stepsons and stepdaughters in our study claimed stepmothers and stepfathers (69% of the stepfathers were claimed, compared with 57% of the stepmothers), it may be somewhat easier for stepchildren to claim stepfathers than stepmothers. In addition to the greater likelihood of sharing residence and greater proximity, stepfathers may have an advantage over stepmothers when it comes to the property of benchmarking—when stepchildren consider stepparents’ behaviors against the benchmarks of culturally expected behaviors for parents, stepfathers may compare more favorably with those benchmarks than stepmothers, because ideals and expectations for mothering may be higher and involve more wide-ranging behaviors than for fathering (Ganong & Coleman, 2017). In addition, mothers may work harder than fathers at facilitating relationships between their children and their partners, which could result in more claiming of stepparents as kin by the children. The gender distribution of stepchildren in our study may also have been a factor in these findings; it may be easier for stepdaughters to claim stepfathers than stepmothers. Clearly, additional studies on gender and claiming are needed.

Claiming, Cohesion, Family Belonging, and Mattering

Our findings illustrate the complexity of the concept of stepchild claiming. As we speculated in the literature review, claiming is not the same as concepts such as closeness (cohesion), family belonging, and mattering to stepparents, although there is conceptual overlap with them. Kinship is fraught with stress as well as love, support, and closeness. Nonetheless, claiming is potentially important in any complex, structurally diverse family form. In claiming, there is some evidence of structural ambivalence, in which claiming contains mostly positive dimensions, but there may be negative elements as well. Claiming stepparents was not synonymous with being close to them, although these clearly were related phenomena.

Claiming someone as kin denotes a sense of belonging and carries with it a sense of mutual responsibility to each other. Feeling connected to another person in some family-related manner provides a kind of emotional glue that may help step-relationships, and other “nontraditional” kin relationships, stick together when external or internal stressors are encountered. The sense of “we-ness” in claiming may provide family members with motivation to persist and to work together in resolving family challenges that may not be present without a feeling of shared belongingness that accompanies claiming. The concept of family belonging refers to a broader unit (“my stepfamily”) than does claiming (“my stepparent”), and the direction of connection is different (“I belong to them” vs. “He or she belongs to me”), but these concepts share the “we-ness” characteristic of having shared identities with others. The units are different (family belonging is about the entire family unit, whereas claiming is dyadic), but there is an underlying commonality to these constructs.

Feeling that one matters to a stepparent may be an aspect of the development of step-relationships that eventually contributes to claiming. No one in our sample directly used the word “mattering,” nor did they talk about wondering how much the stepparent cared about them. However, they did notice stepparents’ affinity-seeking efforts, and it may be that a stepchild’s attributions about such efforts may include such thoughts as, “I must matter enough for my stepparent to make an effort to befriend and take care of me.” Judgments about mattering may be part of the benchmarking that stepchildren do as part of claiming. We do not think we can do much more than speculate about the potential connections between claiming and mattering from our findings, but this is certainly an avenue for further exploration.

Claiming also is likely related to feeling responsible or obligated to one other, sentiments that would either not exist or that would be shallow in the absence of perceived kinship. Kinship carries with it bonds of loyalty and obligation (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1984); although this statement was made about genetic and legal kinship, we believe it holds for socially constructed kinship as well. Claiming, therefore, may be critical in contexts in which individuals, dyads, or family units are in need of assistance. It is probable that claimed individuals, even when relationships are less than ideal, can expect to receive more help than unclaimed individuals (Coleman et al., 2015). Thus, one of the major contributions of this study is highlighting relevant conditions and processes that promote claiming among individuals who do not share biological ties. Of course, further research is needed to explore the connections among claiming, feelings of belongingness, and felt responsibility. Additional investigations also are needed that would explore other associated benefits of claiming kin in diverse family forms. As the numbers of complex families grow, the importance of understanding such dynamics increase in relevance for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

Implications for Research

There is some evidence that having additional supportive adults is beneficial for offspring in postdivorce families (Amato, 2010). One of the limitations of this study is that we do not have information about outcomes. Our data do not allow us to evaluate whether claiming a stepparent as family is beneficial to the stepchild, or under what conditions it is helpful or harmful to them. Additional research is needed to establish how claimed step-relationships affect individual well-being as well as the child’s relationships with his or her biological parents.

Also, because our sample consisted of postremarriage stepfamilies, we cannot draw conclusions about cohabiting stepfamilies. It is possible that the marriage between biological and stepparents creates a context predisposing children to think of the stepparent as family. Given the growing number of cohabiting stepfamilies, particularly among low-income populations, future research on claiming should include them.

Another avenue for future research is to explore processes related to siblings and claiming. It is unclear how the presence of full, half, and step-siblings affect claiming a stepparent. It is possible that the presence of a half-sibling encourages claiming the stepparent as kin or that the presence of a residential step-sibling hinders that process.

The demographics of our sample also post some limitations. Although we did not find gender differences in stepchild claiming, the gender imbalance of our sample is a limitation to be addressed in future research. We cannot say much about if or how men and women go about claiming differently. Our sample was also highly educated, with most participants having some college or a college degree. This hindered our ability to look more broadly at claiming processes in families that may experience more multiple partner fertility and/or cohabiting stepfamily formation.

Stepchildren claiming stepparents as kin appears to be a relatively common phenomenon; although drawing generalizations about prevalence is not a purpose of qualitative research, we did not have difficulty finding stepchildren who claimed one or more stepparents. We want to take pains to note that claiming as kin should not be a goal for step-relationships. It should also be restated that claiming did not mean that relationships were conflict-free; just as parents and their offspring have disagreements and conflicts, so, too did stepchildren with stepparents they claimed as kin. Although not a goal for all, claiming stepparents as kin was important for some stepchildren. We also want to note that claiming is not a permanent status (see Coleman et al., 2015).

These findings provide further evidence that the definition of family is flexible and dynamic. Even when family is defined by biology or marriage, individuals make choices about who they consider to be family (Nelson, 2013). Claiming is a useful construct for explaining the processes by which this happens in stepfamilies and other diverse families.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allan

Crow

Harker

(2013). Stepfamilies. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Amato

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650-666.

Beier

Hofäcker

Marchese

Rupp

(2010). Existential Field 1: Family structures & family forms: An overview of major trends and developments. Bamberg, Germany: State Institute for Family Research, University of Bamberg.

Boszormenyi-Nagy

Spark

(1984). Invisible loyalties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Brown

Manning

(2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85-101.

Burton

L. M.

Hardaway

C. R.

(2012). Low-income mothers as “othermothers” to their romantic partners’ children: Women’s coparenting in multiple partner fertility relationships. Family Process, 51, 343-359.

Cherlin

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

Cherlin

(2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Random House.

Coleman

Ganong

Russell

Frye-Cox

(2015). Stepchildren’s views about former step-relationships following stepfamily dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 775-790.

10.

Corbin

Strauss

(2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Ganong

Coleman

(2017). Stepfamily relationships (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

12.

Ganong

Coleman

Jamison

(2011). Patterns of stepparent–stepchild relationship development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 396-413.

13.

Jensen

T. M.

Shafer

(2013). Stepfamily functioning and closeness: Children’s views on second marriages and stepfather relations. Social Work, 58, 127-136.

14.

Kellas

J. K.

LeClair-Underberg

Normand

E. L.

(2008). Stepfamily address terms: “Sometimes they mean something and sometimes they don’t.” Journal of Family Communication, 8, 238-263.

15.

Kennedy

Fitch

C. A.

(2012). Measuring cohabitation and family structure in the United States: Assessing the impact of new data from the Current Population Survey. Demography, 49, 1479-1498.

16.

King

(2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910-928.

17.

King

(2007). When children have two mothers: Relationships with nonresident mothers, stepmothers, and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1178-1193.

18.

King

(2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and stepfathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954-968.

19.

King

Amato

P. R.

Lindstrom

(2015). Stepfather–adolescent relationship quality during the first year of transitioning to a stepfamily. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1179-1189.

20.

King

Boyd

L. M.

Thorsen

M. L.

(2015). Adolescents’ perceptions of family belonging in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 761-774. doi:10.1111/jomf.12181

21.

King

Thorsen

M. L.

Amato

P. R.

(2014). Factors associated with positive relationships between stepfathers and adolescent stepchildren. Social Science Research, 47, 16-29.

22.

Leake

V. S.

(2007). Personal, familial, and systemic factors associated with family belonging for stepfamily adolescents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47, 135-155.

23.

Manning

W. D.

Brown

S. L.

Lamidi

Payne

K. K.

(2014). Trends in births to single and cohabiting mothers, 1980-2009. Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-14-05_TrendsInBirths.pdf

24.

Marsiglio

(2004). When stepfathers claim stepchildren: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 22-39.

25.

Nelson

M. K.

(2013). Fictive kin, families we choose, and voluntary kin: What does the discourse tell us? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 259-281.

26.

Pew Research Center. (2011). A portrait of stepfamilies. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/01/13/a-portrait-of-stepfamilies/

27.

Schenck

C. E.

Braver

S. L.

Wolchik

S. A.

Saenz

Cookston

J. T.

Fabricius

W. V.

(2009). Relations between mattering to step- and non-residential fathers and adolescent mental health. Fathering, 7, 70-90. doi:10.3149/fth.0701.70

28.

Schrodt

(2006). The stepparent relationship index: Development, validation, and associations with stepchildren’s perceptions of stepparent communication competence and closeness. Personal Relationships, 13, 167-182.

29.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

30.

Sweeney

M. M.

(2010). Remarriage and stepfamilies: Strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 667-684.