Michelle Martin Uzzi dissertation

Institute for Clinical Social Work

The Experience of Remarried Couples in Blended Families

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Michele Martin-Uzzi

Chicago, Illinois June 2011

2

ABSTRACT

This study examines the experience of remarried couples within the context of a blended family. Fifteen couples in simple and complex stepfamilies that had been married from 1 to 38 years were interviewed. Narratives were coded using grounded theory, and the data were analyzed using the lens of self psychology. The majority of the remarried couples interviewed reported being cautious when remarrying. Conflicts arose between the couples because of differing loyalties in the family, trouble integrating the new spouse due to role confusion, and the continued presence of the ex-spouse. The couple’s animosity towards the ex-spouse helped them meet the selfobject need for twinship and reinforce their identity as a couple. The previously married spouses appreciated having a “second chance” at happiness and being a family again, and the spouse with children appreciated the generosity of the stepparent for entering into a relationship with children from a previous marriage.

3

For my parents and sister, and my second family, Brian, Ella, and Jonas

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to especially thank Denise Duval for guiding me through this process and encouraging me along the way, and Dennis Shelby for his last-minute rescue of the analysis; each committee member, Karen Bloomberg, Carla Leone, Amy Eldridge, and Connie Goldberg, who have put time and care not only into this dissertation but into helping me become a better clinician.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………...ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………..iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………1 History of the Problem Future of the Problem II. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………

4

Introduction High Expectations The Ex-Spouse The Children Role and Boundary Ambiguity Financial Issues Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Overall Question Explored Theoretical and Operational Definitions of Major Concepts Statement of Assumptions III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….......21 Introduction Participant Recruitment Description of Participants Data Collection Interview Process Data Analysis Member Checking Limits and Generalizability Statement on Protecting the Rights of Human Subjects

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

IV. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………..33 Introduction Going to the Chapel Loyalty The Influential Ex Bite My Tongue Who Am I Supposed to Be? Strong Emotions Summary of the Findings V. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………...76 Introduction Characteristics of blended families that run smoothly Implications for Treatment Limitations of the Study Future Research Final Thoughts Appendixes A. B.

Participant Informed Consent …………………………………………… 105 List of Couples Participating in the Study and Characteristics…………..108 References………………………………………………………………...111

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION History of the Problem Half of the marriages that take place annually are remarriages for either one or both partners, and 65% of them include children from a previous marriage (Chadwick & Heaton, 1999). Typically, remarriages take place rapidly after a divorce. The mean length of time between divorce and remarriage is four years and 30% marry just one year later (Clark & Wilson, 1994). Up to 75% of all people who divorce will remarry (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000; Lown & Dolan, 1988). Two-thirds of divorced women and threefourths of divorced men remarry (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Buunk & Mutsaers, 1999; Coleman et al., 2000; Dupuis, 2007; Faber, 2004; Glick, 1989).

Unfortunately, with the divorce rate of remarriages at 60%, many of these couples are not successful in their second attempt at marriage. Separations are not only taking place more often in remarriages but they are occurring much earlier in the relationship. Twenty percent of remarried couples will end their relationship five years after having formed a family (Stepfamily Foundation, Inc., 2003). This makes sense given that researchers have estimated it takes an average of five to seven years for a stepfamily to function with comfort in their interaction (Dupuis, 2007; Pappernow, 1987; Walsh, 1992). Couples may be ending their relationship before the average time it takes to be comfortable.

2 Stepfamily functioning and couple functioning appear to be inextricably linked (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Dupuis, 2007; Pasley, Dollahite, & IhingerTallman, 1993). White & Booth (1985) have determined that the presence of stepchildren negatively affects marital satisfaction. Some of the stressors that may contribute to this are the conflicting loyalties between the parent, stepparent, and children; the continued disagreements with the ex-spouse; and the complexity and ambiguity of new roles and relationships within the family. In treatment, remarried couples without children do best, followed by first-married couples without children, first-married couples with children, and lastly remarried couples with children (Hampson, Prince, & Beavers, 1999). The presence of children and the ex-spouse in the remarried couple’s life appear to have a profound impact on the success of the couple’s marriage.

Future of the Problem The majority of the literature on remarriage is primarily concerned with issues of stepparenting and blending two families (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Dupuis, 2007; Faber, 2004; Stokes & Wampler, 2002) or comparing remarriages to first marriages (Ganong & Coleman, 1984; Stokes & Wampler, 2002). Most of the research gathered specific and concrete information but did not offer a complete picture of the remarried couple’s experience. Only a few studies offered a theoretical foundation to interpret the results. There are no known studies focused on what the remarried couple may be experiencing within the complexity of the stepfamily, and very few qualitative studies have been done.

3 It seems necessary that a richer form of data be provided to social workers who are attempting to effectively help remarried couples cope with the challenges of stepfamily living and maintain a strong bond as a couple. Social workers who treat remarried couples in therapy as they would couples in a first marriage may be missing many aspects that are unique to remarried couples. Without a better understanding of the remarried couple’s experience, it may be difficult to normalize the emotional, social, and economic realities of remarriage. It also seems that more Americans are living in stepfamilies now than in nuclear families (Stepfamily Foundation, Inc., 2003), and the majority of researchers have concluded that it is the marital dyad that is the most important part to preserving the stepfamily (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Walsh, 1992).

This study offered a qualitative perspective on the experiences of remarried couples within the context of a blended family. A remarried couple in this study was defined as a couple where at least one, if not both, partners has custodial and financial obligations to children from a prior marriage. This research provided an important contribution to the field of social work because it captured intimate dynamics of a remarried couple’s experiences by examining the narratives of remarried couples.

Patterns of interacting were identified as well as the emotions that were evoked given these interactions. The theoretical lens of self-psychology was used to interpret the results.

4

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Much of the literature on remarriage is focused on stepfamily functioning and the relationship between the stepparent and stepchild. Although both of these areas influence marital satisfaction, there has not been a study that demonstrates how this occurs specifically. The relationship of the couple has not been looked at in depth as an entity. It has only been explored in the context of the children and family. Although the number of stepfamilies has been predicted to exceed the number of traditional nuclear families at this time, the literature continues to be insufficient when addressing the concerns of the marital dyad within the stepfamily.

Some of the literature compares first-married couples to remarried couples. The studies look broadly at differences and do not offer an in-depth explanation as to what these differences mean. For example, Sandlin, Baucom, Burnett, Epstein, & RankinEsquer (2001) found that remarried couples tend to have better outcomes for marital satisfaction than first-married couples due to the experience of having been married before. Yet remarried couples with stepchildren have, according to Hampson et al.

(1999), the least positive outcomes in treatment. Based on this research, it appears that a second marriage is better without stepchildren.

5 Looking at the couple’s relationship as an entity has been found only in studies that are secondary analyses. For example, both Faber (2004) and Dupuis (2007) highlight a list of aspects that are specific to remarried couples based on what they gleaned from previous research about stepfamilies and remarriage and/or from the literature. Some of these are the high expectations and pressure remarried couples put on their new marriage, the unresolved issues with the ex-spouse, competition between the biological parent-child dyad and the marital dyad, and the strain of ambiguous roles on members of the stepfamily. There has not been a more formalized research design found that looks specifically at the couple. In terms of finance, the impact of shared finances between the new couple and the former family has been more formally researched. Unfortunately, the symbolic meaning of money to the couple has not been highlighted except briefly in a case study by Bray (2001).

High Expectations Faber (2004) and Dupuis (2007) point out that in remarriages the couple tends to enter their marriage with high expectations for a successful union. There is a “nuclear family myth� that the stepfamily will function exactly as a first marriage family (Bray & Kelly, 1988). Because of the failure of the first marriage, individuals may be determined to learn from prior mistakes, which can add significant pressure to succeed the second time (Dupuis, 2007; Faber, 2004). There may be an underlying hope that the new marriage can make up for the pain of the prior marriage. The remarriage is also perceived as a second chance to become a legitimate family again (Crosbie-Burnett, 1989; KheshgiGenovese & Genovese, 1997). Regrettably, the desire to use the marriage to heal old

6 wounds may stop the new couple from bringing up and acknowledging the issues that are inherent to their new family. Pappernow (1987) suggests that it is the very presence of these unconscious fantasies about the remarriage that inhibit the couple from communicating effectively and creating a middle ground between the marital and biological dyads.

Remarried couples may also be oversensitive to conflicts or differences of opinion owing to the fear that these can signify another failure (Faber, 2004). According to Baum & Schnit (2005), a partner who has already been divorced is coming into the marriage with significant deficits in their self-esteem. Narcissistic injuries are heightened from the loss of the previous relationship, and a new partner is needed to assist in building up and maintaining a revived sense of self-esteem. Therefore, there may be a desire to avoid bringing up old feelings of rejection and failure from the first marriage.

The new partner may also have strong feelings about how things should go in the new family. Kheshgi-Genovese & Genovese (1997) found that some new spouses see themselves as rescuing the family and therefore entitled to appreciation, while others want nothing to do with the children and only wish to have a relationship with the new spouse. Another common expectation is that the children will instantly love them, and that they will love the children (Bray, 2001). When these expectations are not met, disappointment can be turned inward and transformed into guilt and anger (Visher & Visher, 1979). Rather than working through these disappointments, people who have survived a divorce once may be more willing to leave the marriage a second time (Booth & Edwards 1992; Fursenberg & Spanier, 1984).

7 The Ex-Spouse McCarthy & Ginsbert (2007) state that the general and professional public is still under the misconception that stepchildren and the blending of the family are the most troublesome challenge the couple faces when, in fact, the greater threat is the continued influence of the ex-spouse. Living with the ghost of a former marriage prevents the individual from fully entering into a new relationship (Schneller & Arditti, 2004). If the individual is struggling with establishing bonds of affection or commitment and trust with a new partner, he or she may still be contending with the severance of emotional ties to the former spouse (Goetting, 1982). An internal relationship with the lost loved person may persist, albeit in a different form. This prior relationship may continue to have meaning and influence responses in the new relationship (Schneller & Arditti, 2004).

Unresolved issues with the ex-spouse may increase the probability of being emotionally sensitive and reactive to the new spouse. The partner may fall back on learned, defensive, and self-protective behaviors from the previous marriage (Faber, 2004). Triangulation may also occur when one partner in the newly formed marriage is still emotionally connected to the ex-spouse (Stokes & Wampler, 2002). The divorced partner may attempt to work out old issues by putting the new spouse in the middle rather than resolve them directly with the ex.

Possibly one of the most contentious dilemmas the remarried couple must manage is that of the unresolved emotional issues of the first marriage. “Emotional baggage� creates misunderstandings, projections, misperceptions, and the reenactment of old scripts (Crosbie-Burnett, 1989; Dupuis, 2007). In order to move on, the couple needs to

8 relinquish the fantasies and myths projected onto the new marriage and mourn the losses of the first (Dupuis, 2007; Faber, 2004). This predicament is so common to remarried couples that the term “emotional divorce” has been coined (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Faber, 2004). An “emotional divorce” implies that the couple has worked through their emotional issues. When a partner is not emotionally divorced, he or she is still attached to the spouse of the prior marriage. Examples of this are when one partner continues to confide in the first spouse, expresses jealousy if the first spouse dates, or defends the first spouse to the new one (Stokes & Wampler, 2002). Disruptions in the marital dyad may also manifest if there are continued displays of anger, resentment, envy, or guilt toward the ex-spouse (Dupuis, 2007).

Masheter (1997) found that partners that rated high in preoccupation and friendship with the ex-spouse have more negative outcomes for emotionally separating than those who had low levels of preoccupation and high hostility. On the other hand, Madden-Derdich & Arditti (1999) found that as long as divorced individuals clearly define themselves as co-parents and not marital partners, some emotional attachment can be a benefit rather than a hindrance to adjustment. Divorced partners have the difficult task of maintaining a good relationship to the ex-spouse for the sake of the children but also staying emotionally distant if the new marriage is to have a chance (Knox & Zusman, 2001).

Even with emotional distance from the ex-spouse, it is possible that the current marriage may still be perceived by the spouses within the context of the prior marriage.

Dupuis (2007) states that comparisons will be made between the new spouse and prior spouse and the new spouse may be perceived as ahead or behind in some dimensions.

9 These comparisons may be used by the divorced partner as a means of protection against further loss. The new spouse may also worry that they are not measuring up to their partner’s expectations and their own internal ones. They compare themselves to the exspouse in terms of role, status, and performance (Sweet, 2001). Faber (2004) suspects that this chronic anxiety places a strain on the relationship. The anxiety could lead to temper outbursts, frequent arguments, feelings of inferiority, self-consciousness, and a growing feeling of hopelessness about the future (Stokes & Wampler, 2002). In a second marriage, it is also common for one spouse to feel as though they are made to pay for the “bad behavior� of the ex-spouse (McCarthy & Ginsberg, 2007).

The Children In the remarried family system there is a complex set of dynamics that creates difficulty between the couple, the stepparent, and the children. The stepfamily involves a competition, of sorts, between the biological parent-child dyad and the new marital dyad, with the biological dyad often winning (Dupuis, 2007; Pappernow, 1987). The biological dyad has a history and a familiarity surrounding their interactions, while the remarried dyad oftentimes has less history. Although many stepparents enter into their marriage with strong commitments to care for the children, they also fear not fitting in and being rejected by the children (Sweet, 2001). The relationship between the single parent and the child may be stronger than that of the relationship to the new spouse because of shared difficulties prior to the new marriage (Kheshgi-Genovese & Genovese, 1997; Pappernow, 1987). When the parent is intimately connected to the child, the new spouse must compete for time alone, attention, and nourishment (Pappernow, 1987). Stepparents may

10 begin to falter under the competition and pressure their spouse to choose them over their own children (Cartwright, 2003). The conflict between the stepparent and the stepchild may redirect issues away from the remarried system and create feelings of loneliness in the new spouse who feels on the outside of the biological dyad (Dupuis, 2007; Verner, Coleman, Ganong, & Cooper, 1989). Meanwhile, the parent who is trying to maintain ties to their children feels a tremendous amount of renewed guilt over the divorce and the time they are spending with the new spouse (Visher & Visher, 1994).

It is important to note that the literature does not appear to mention stepfamily dynamics in which the new spouse is the privileged member of the system while the children are left out. If the couple is having difficulties, the children may become the scapegoat for why the couple is unhappy. The children also may be an unhappy reminder of the previous marriage and pushed into the background to avoid the unresolved issues.

There are many reasons why children can negatively affect a new marriage. One potential cause may be that the children see the stepparent as an interloper in a family that was working fine before they came along (Crosbie-Burnett, 1989; Dupuis, 2007).

Children may be caught up in a fantasy about the old family structure and desire to see their parents reconciled (Walsh, 1992). Therefore, it is no surprise that children have an intense emotional reaction to their parent’s remarriage and may experience jealousy and disdain toward the new spouse. The remarriage signifies the permanent loss of their parent’s first marriage (Cartwright, 2003).

Children may feel ensnared in their loyalty to their biological parent. They believe that loving the stepparent may be seen as disloyal, or that it might diminish their love for their biological parent (Walsh, 1992). The children pick up on the atmosphere of

11 competition between the biological parents for the children’s loyalty (Cartwright, 2003; Visher & Visher, 1994). The stepchildren often get trapped between the biological parents and act out the parent’s pain, resentment, and guilt (Dupuis, 2007; Pappernow, 1987; Pasley et al., 1993). The new spouse steps into this environment and quickly becomes a target for this acting out.

One way in which the new spouse might try to reestablish a sense of control and security in the new relationship is by becoming an ally against the former spouse (Faber, 2004). This maintains a marital balance through creating a coalition against a third party.

This strategy backfires though because it only serves to link the ex-spouse even more intimately to the remarriage. The constant discussion over the ex-spouse increases preoccupation with them and strains the couple’s ability to nurture and establish their relationship.

The complications and stresses of being in a remarriage with children may contribute to the sense of loss remarried couples tend to experience within the first years of the marriage. In a remarriage, there is no honeymoon period before having children.

The couple enters marriage during an ongoing phase of child rearing. They miss the period of time where they can focus solely on solidifying their commitment through creating shared meanings and working out their differences (Dupuis, 2007; Goetting, 1982; Pappernow, 1987). Because of the challenges of stepfamily life, remarried couples risk being less attentive and less available to one another (Beaudry, Boisvert, Simard, Parent, & Blais, 2004). They suddenly find themselves in a family environment where they have to form many attachments all at once and there is still mourning over the previous attachment (Walsh, 1992). Rather than creating their own family at their own

12 pace, the remarried couple inherits each other’s previous families. Felker, Fromme, Arnaut, & Stoll (2002) suggest that this inheritance produces feelings of exclusion, isolation, and a lack of cohesiveness and unity during a time when the couple is trying to forge their identity as a unit. Finally, there is a loss in being able to equally share power when making decisions for the family.

Role and Boundary Ambiguity Cherlin (1978) stated that in stepfamilies roles are less scripted by norms than those in traditional nuclear families. Instead, there is an artificially created parent/child relationship that does not have biological ties or the time involved to form an intimate relationship. Under the pressure of the “nuclear family myth,� men and women in remarried couples push themselves into roles that they find do not quite fit or work as they would in a nuclear family. There is confusion as to what role they are supposed to play in the new family, and disappointment and resentment as they struggle to create a place in the family that feels appropriate. Members may feel left out or marginalized depending on where they are in the stepfamily hierarchy (Hobart, 1988). The continued ambivalence over roles can diminish the cohesiveness of the family and the feelings of support and belonging that are a product of this cohesion. The remarried couple has to bear the strain of the ambiguity in the midst of forming their own relationship.

Kim (2010) found role ambiguity to be the most significant factor in explaining the level of marital satisfaction for remarried couples. Decreased marital satisfaction was related to the greater complexity of the stepfamily and the ambiguity of the roles that resulted from this. Remarried couples in stepfamilies that both have children from

13 previous marriages have greater confusion as to the rights and duties that should be associated with family members. The consistency in cognitions held by stepfamily members is positively related to the relationship quality of the various stepfamily subsystems (Fine & Kurdek, 1994).

Not only are roles not easily defined in stepfamilies, but boundaries are also poorly marked owing to the movement of children in and out of the household as well as the continued contact with the ex-spouse. Boss (1987) studied family boundary ambiguity and defined it as “a state when family members are uncertain in their perception of who is in or out of the family or who is performing what roles and tasks within the family system” (p. 695). In stepfamilies, members assume a status based on how much they are a resident of the family. Mothers have a greater status with their biological children than the father and his children from a previous marriage (Hobart, 1988; Pasley, 1987). A result of the transitions of the children and the permeability of family boundaries is that stepfamilies have less emotional bonding and feelings of closeness and support (Peek, Bell, Waldren & Sorell, 1988). They are also less flexible than first-married couples, which is detrimental given that the lack of cultural guidelines requires greater flexibility and negotiation.

In a more recent study, Stewart (2005) found that “boundary ambiguity is negatively associated with the quality of the couple’s relationship and stability of the union, but only from the perspective of wives and female partners” (p. 1002). This may be because ambiguous boundaries are most frequent when the husband has his children coming into the household (Pasley, 1987). These children have the lowest status of all the members of the family and place the wife in the role as stepmother. This is a role that she

14 is in for a limited amount of time and with which she may not be comfortable. In an effort to cope with stepfamily stress, women have been found to use confrontation while men will withdraw emotionally from their stepchildren. If men consistently withdraw, the closeness between the woman and her stepchildren also decreases and tension with her own children increases (DeLongis & Preece, 2010). As previously noted, the functioning of the stepfamily and the couple do seem to be inextricably linked, and boundary confusion is just one more stress that affects them.

Financial Issues The majority of the literature describes concrete aspects of how managing finances might potentially affect the couple. Goetting (1982), for example, found that remarriages tend to be economically unstable owing to child support payments. Having to either pay or receive payments may impinge on the couple’s lifestyle (Crosbie-Burnett, 1989). Child support payments may elicit uncomfortable feelings for the couple around power and control over their money. The new spouse may feel powerless in regard to money management and expenditures and resent payments made to former spouses or children who are not part of the household, while the former spouse may feel devalued and dependent on the payments (Lown & Dolan, 1988).

The literature does not directly address what money may symbolize to the couple or how it affects them emotionally. However, one might presume that because two households are still financially linked, a residual emotional connection may remain to the ex-spouse. Money may represent loyalty and support to the previous marriage (Bray, 2001). The active participation of both ex-spouses over financial decisions maintains the

15 tight bond to the first family (Fishman, 1983). The new partner may see money as a symbol of a continued attachment to the previous spouse (Elliott, 1997). This form of attachment may impede the new couple in forming their own.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework The theoretical framework of this study is based on contemporary self psychology and intersubjective theory. One of the main tenets of self psychology is that the maturation of a cohesive sense of self is at the core of development (Kohut & Wolf, 1978). This maturation does not occur in isolation but is assisted by the presence of others who provide selfobject experiences: “A selfobject experience refers to the internal, subjective experience of functions provided by others who are experienced as part of the self” (Gardner, 1999). It is not a thing or a person but a psychological function that maintains, restores, and transforms self-experience (Stolorow, Brandchaft, & Atwood, 1995). In a couple, each partner seeks selfobject experience from the other; well-functioning couples are able to reliably serve as a source of selfobject experience for each other.

Kohut (1984) identified three selfobject needs. One he referred to as mirroring, which is the desire to be admired and affirmed as special in one’s own right. The experience of mirroring fosters self-esteem, assertiveness, and ambition. The second is the need for idealization or to merge with an idealized other who signifies a sense of calmness and strength. This allows the child to develop an inner reservoir of security and composure to draw on in times of stress and use to regulate affect. Lastly, twinship needs are needs for the experience of belonging, alikeness, and kinship with others.

16 Selfobject needs are evoked in the interplay of the two different subjectivities partners bring to their marriage. Intersubjectivity theory is an extension of self psychology focused on the interplay between the differently organized subjective worlds of two people (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984). The theory proposes that people see the world through different frameworks or “unconscious organizing principles” that form through early relational experiences (Stolorow, Brandschaft, & Atwood, 1995). In a remarried couple, the prior marriage is the most recent relational experience to influence these frameworks.

The concepts of self psychology and intersubjectivity theory have been beneficial when applied to the treatment of couples. The marital dyad can be seen as an intersubjective system in which underlying selfobject needs for affirmation, acceptance, and belonging are reawakened in each of the partners. It is the lack of needed selfobject experience that underlies most couples’ presenting problems when they enter therapy (Leone, 2008). Ringstrom (1994) proposed an intersubjective model of couple’s treatment in which he recommended emphasizing the validity of each partner’s subjective perspective and recognizing that the origin of each partner’s complaint lies in the developmental history of thwarted selfobject yearnings. He suggested that a partner’s reenactment of past conflicts is an attempt to restore or maintain a sense of self-organization. Livingston (1998) found that partners may fear that if they fulfill a selfobject function for the other, they will have to sacrifice their own needs.

Remarried couples bring unique issues into therapy that may not be found with first-married couples. For example, at least one of the partners has been married before and has experienced the first marriage as a failed attempt at selfobject responsiveness.

17 This failure may have affected the state of the partner’s self by lowering his or her feelings of self-esteem. The partner may be more vulnerable to feeling rejected and like a failure. Individuals with lower self-esteem have a greater need for selfobject functions from their partner. .

The selfobject needs of the remarried couple are similar to those of any couple, but the remarried couple may have more difficulty meeting each other’s needs due to the complexity of the blended family. For example, the selfobject need for belonging and feeling a sense of alikeness with one’s partner can be compromised by the presence of the partner’s children and ex-spouse. It may be difficult to foster a sense of alikeness and belonging when one partner is new to the family system and has no biological investment.

Another selfobject need that may be more challenging to meet for remarried couples is the need to feel comforted and soothed by one’s partner. The demands of multiple loyalties in a blended family may lead to feelings of being overwhelmed and of not having enough to give to each member of the family. The needs of the children may come before the nurturing of the remarried couple’s relationship. Resentments may build as fewer needs are met and it becomes harder for each partner to be present and available for the other. This adds to the depleted sense of self the divorced partner may already be bringing into the marriage. It is difficult to provide comfort to another when one’s own internal resources are exhausted.

Meeting selfobject needs may be hampered by the remarried couple’s anxiety over unresolved issues in the prior marriage. The couple may continue to attempt to meet selfobject needs in the new marriage in the same way and be unsuccessful again.

18 Partners may be unaware of the beliefs and expectations that they have formed from their experiences with their family growing up and from the prior marriage. Bringing these “unconscious organizing principles” into awareness may help each partner take responsibility for their actions in the relationship and promote feelings of safety and security in the marriage.

Contemporary self psychology and intersubjectivity theory can be helpful in addressing concerns that are distinctive to remarried couples. Clinicians can assess the state of each partner’s sense of self, unmet selfobject needs, and unconscious organizing principles created by their own early relational experiences and as evident in the prior marriage. The empathy that is at the foundation of self psychology is essential to conveying understanding and validation for each partner’s perspective. This supportive stance assists in rebuilding each partner’s sense of a positive cohesive self, which can strengthen the couple’s ability to make the necessary changes in their relationship.

Overall Question Explored This study originally pursued the question of how the previous marriage impacted the experience of the remarried couple. After some data were collected, it evolved into a broader question to encompass the findings: What is the experience of remarried couples in the context of blended families? Couples have relationships that continue on into their new marriage and may create conflicts between the partners. This study looked at what situations arose that were specific to remarried couples and how it

19 colored the experience of their marriage. It also looked at the emotions elicited by these particular situations.

Theoretical and Operational Definitions of Major Concepts 1. Remarried couple: A couple in which at least one spouse has custodial and financial obligations to children from a previous marriage.

2. First marriage: Never being married before and not having children from a previous marriage.

3. Emotional divorce: A partner in a marriage is no longer attached to the previous spouse.

4. Simple stepfamily: One partner has been married before and brings in children from his/her previous marriage to the new marriage.

5. Complex stepfamily: Both partners have been previously married and bring their children into the new relationship.

Statement of Assumptions The following assumptions guided this study: 1. Each partner’s personal history will have an influence on the new marriage.

2. The prior marriage will have an influence on the new marriage.

3. There will be expectations for the new marriage.

4. Children will need to be integrated into the new relationship.

5. The initial period of remarriage may be experienced differently than a first marriage.

20 6. There will be conflicted dynamics within the couple that improve with time and others that will persist.

21

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction The majority of the literature on remarriage is focused on either blended family dynamics or the relationship between the stepparent and the children. The studies that specifically address the relationship of the remarried couple are based on a secondary analysis of these family studies. The vast majority of the research is quantitative in nature. This study took a qualitative approach and used grounded theory in order to obtain a richer, more personal account of the experience of the remarried couple.

A qualitative method of inquiry allowed the researcher to begin the study by focusing on the central research question, “What is the experience of remarried couples within the context of the blended family.� The question was open-ended, and participants were invited to discuss and reflect on the meaning it had for them. Large amounts of data were collected that presented multiple realities and viewpoints of the participants. As the instrument of the data collection, the researcher was immersed in the narrative and reported detailed views of the informants while simultaneously analyzing emerging data and trying to build a holistic picture (Creswell, 1998). As the researcher began to describe the phenomena, themes began to emerge and comparisons were made. Questions became

22 more focused in interviews as an understanding of the data increased. By using a qualitative research method, the idea was that through an extensive process gather rich narratives and coding themes, the researcher would come to a central underlying idea.

The aim of this study was to get to an underlying understanding of the experience of the remarried couple within a blended family.

In order to gain an “insider’s perspective,” grounded theory was used to provide a framework for the emerging data. Glaser & Strauss (1967) define grounded theory as a method by which to generate a theory for understanding the phenomenon being investigated that is “grounded” in the data rather than imposed on it. Grounded theory provides a systematic approach to the research with specific steps in data analysis. It seeks to uncover the basic social processes that underlie behavior by placing an emphasis on action and process (McLeod, 2001). Analysis of the data is continuous throughout the entire process, and codes are constructed from the data using a constant comparative method. This method involves comparing and contrasting categories to see if they should be merged or separated. Data collection ends when there are no new ideas or insights gained through interviews and data analysis and the category are saturated. At this point in the research process, a main category emerges that captures the meaning of the phenomenon of the study taken as a whole (McLeod, 2001).

In this study, the researcher asked the couple open-ended questions about their experience as a remarried couple and collected large amounts of data. Grounded theory provided a framework in which to organize the data so that the researcher could begin to analyze it from the onset of the research process. This continuous data analysis helped spark new ideas in the researcher as further interviews were conducted with the couples.

23 These new ideas lead to different questions, which opened new paths to explore with the couple. Most importantly, grounded theory aimed to get at the dynamic of the couple and highlight how the couple experiences their relationship through themes that emerged in the data. These themes pointed out the commonalities a couple shared or their differences. It was through grounded theory that the researcher attempted to make meaning from these themes.

Because the researcher was the main instrument, Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist approach to using grounded theory offered a framework for the interviewer to manage potential bias when conducting interviews and analyzing the data. Charmaz cautions: Interviewers must remain attuned to how participants perceive them and how both participants’ and interviewers’ past and immediate identities may influence the character and content of the interaction.” (p. 27).

In this study the researcher brought her own personal experience of being in a remarried couple to the research process. During the interviews, it seemed to enrich the alliance between the researcher and the couple, but it also required the researcher to remain open to the experiences of the couple. As a check for potential bias, the researcher kept in mind that both she and the couple held their own perceptions of remarriage and that these perceptions could influence data collected.

According to Charmaz (2006), participants will appraise the interviewer, assess the situation, and act on this assessment and prior knowledge. In this study, participants were aware that the researcher was a woman in her thirties who lived in a simple stepfamily and was a stepmother to her husband’s two children. Given this information, stepparents appeared to identify strongly with the researcher, as they would ask if she had

24 had experiences similar to theirs. Their partner would, at times, make assumptions that the researcher’s husband may have felt as they did. Couples in a complex stepfamily would comment on how much more difficult it was for each person to have children brought into the marriage and that perhaps the researcher would not be able to understand the added difficulties they had. The researcher focused on maintaining a neutral stance and empathized with each person’s perspective.

Participant Recruitment This study used nonrandom, purposive, selective sampling methods. Couples were recruited by using snowball sampling (Rubin & Babbie, 2005). The researcher asked friends and colleagues if they knew of any remarried couples that might participate in such a study. The couples that agreed to an interview would also contribute names of couples that they believed would be interested in participating. The researcher also created a flyer describing the study and posted it at libraries, cafes, grocery stores, and other public areas, but no couples were recruited through this route.

Participants of the study were given information over the phone about the purpose of the study and what they might expect during the interview. Their eligibility (e.g., meeting the study’s criteria) was also determined at this time. Couples willing to participate were given the option to cease participation at anytime. Confidentiality was protected by holding the interviews either at the couple’s home in a private area away from family members or at the researcher’s office.

25 Description of Participants Fifteen couples participated in an interview for the study, and interviews ranged from one hour to two hours long. The majority of the sample was from the mid to upper socioeconomic class and Caucasian. Two couples were African American, and all couples were heterosexual. Interviews were held in the participants’ homes except for one couple, who came to the researcher’s office. Two interviews were conducted on Skype because these couples were out of state.

Participants ranged in age from 32 to 72. The majority of the sample was in their late thirties and early forties. All subjects were employed and held at least a high school diploma. Several had advanced degrees. The length of time of remarriage ranged from one year to 36 years. The average length of time of the sample was 13 years.

Data Collection Data were collected through interviews. Interviews ranged from of one hour to two hours in length. After the interview, the couple was encouraged to e-mail any other thoughts they might have to the researcher. No participants followed up on this offer. All interviews conducted had both partners present. No one was interviewed individually, although for five interviews one spouse would leave for a few minutes and the other would continue to talk with the researcher.

After going over the purpose of the study and having the participants look over and sign the consent form, the interview protocol began with the central research question, “What has been the impact of the previous marriage on your current relationship?” The researcher allowed the couple to ponder and reflect on what it meant

26 to them. The question was posed in such a way as to foster the participant’s reflections and to explore the topic. When the couple had a difficult time free associating and sharing their ideas, the researcher had two other questions she used to promote discussion: 1) What is it like maintaining a relationship with your previous spouse and children while strengthening your own relationship as a couple?; and 2) How is being in a remarriage different than a first marriage?

As the interviews progressed, the data elicited other ideas for further exploration and additional questions were posed. Charmaz (2006) calls these ideas “sensitizing concepts.� Sensitizing concepts were used as points of departure from the central research question.

Interview Process Generally couples appeared to be uncomfortable at the beginning of the interview and warmed up as it progressed. They may have felt vulnerable talking about their marriage together in front of a stranger. Recognizing this, the researcher attempted to create a safe and nonjudgmental environment for the couple to talk. She would comment on the comfort of their house, be appreciative of their time, and sometimes acknowledge how it could be awkward to talk in the beginning. As the interview progressed, some of the couples appeared to want to impress upon the researcher how well they were doing given the difficulties they had. Others seemed to desire validation from her about their lives and to normalize what they were going through. Two of the couples got very angry with each other in front of her, and one asked for a referral for a marital therapist, which was provided. Overall, the distinct impression given was that the majority of these

27 couples had undergone great difficulties along the way in establishing their relationship.

The interview may have given them a chance to process their experience. Many of the couples could have talked longer than two hours if the researcher had not ended the interview.

Couples that had grown children appeared light-hearted and could reflect on the difficulties of blended family living with some humor and gratitude that the children were out of the house. There were also moments of regret for them when they wished they had done things differently and knew back then what they know now. The couples that had small children and were in the process of raising them seemed to exhibit the most stress.

Many of them were interrupted by their children during the interviews, and two couples got calls from their kids who were with the other parent during the interview. The complex stepfamilies interviewed (both parents had children from a previous marriage) had noticeably much more chaos and stress in the household than the simple stepfamilies.

Many of them had teenagers from their first marriage and small children in the new marriage. They commented on how it felt as though they had to simultaneously raise children from the two most demanding and difficult developmental periods.

Being a stepparent in a simple stepfamily, the researcher came into the interviews with some idea about what she might find. Some experiences were different then her own, and she found herself often comparing and contrasting these differences. It was gratifying at times when the couple’s experiences were similar, and she found that this facilitated the flow of the interview. When the couple’s experience was not parallel, the researcher found she needed to concentrate more to stay open to it.

28 After several interviews, a pattern began to emerge and she used the common themes to foster other questions to probe with during the discussion. As the interviews progressed, she became adept at picking up on the themes that were emerging. She also noticed quickly when an interview would have depth to it opposed to those that stayed concrete despite her attempts to probe more deeply.

Data Analysis After the interview was completed, the researcher would take down some notes on the impression that the couple left on her. She would reflect on how comfortable the couple was together and how intimately they would express themselves. If a difference of opinion arose, she documented how the couple handled the potential conflict. She also took note of the topic discussed when signs of tension appeared and if there were any open displays of strong emotions such as anger or sadness.

Before transcribing an interview, the researcher noted various pieces of demographic information at the top of the first page, such as how many years the couple had been married, how many children each of them brought into the marriage, how old the children were when they were married, the number of children they had together, and what kind of custody agreement they each had with the former spouse. This information was used towards the end of the analysis to see if there was a relationship between stepfamilies with similar structures. In the meantime, the interview was transcribed as quickly as possible, and during the transcribing sections were highlighted that sparked possible themes. When the transcription was completed, the researcher went rapidly line by line through the narrative and highlighted other areas that seemed of importance.

29 During this time the researcher continued to conduct interviews. After completing and transcribing several interviews, she began to detect themes and switched to a more selective and focused coding. She started to group narratives with a similar content together and talked about these groupings with her methodologist to check for potential bias. She then narrowed these group narratives down further by keeping the ones that appeared the most frequently in the transcriptions and discarding the rest. This list of group narratives was taken into the interviews, and the researcher listened carefully to see if the same or similar content would be brought up. The majority of the time similar content would be discussed by the couple. If it was not brought up by the end of the interview, the researcher would mention a group narrative theme to the couple and ask them what they might think about it.

When all of the interviews and transcriptions were finished and the group narratives seemed to stabilize, the researcher embarked on attempting to establish what relationships might exist between these groups. She had to be mindful of not forcing a relationship between any of the groups but rather to allow it to naturally flow from the data. It was helpful to go back to the literature review and see if there were any other relevant studies at this time because it opened up the researcher to look at other possible themes that were missed, and these served to tie some of the groups together more cohesively.

Member Checking Member checks were conducted either by e-mail or over the phone with five couples. Participants had been sent the results of the study and asked if these results

30 reflected their experience as a remarried couple in a blended family. This member checking was done to confirm how accurately the researcher understood the couples’ experience.

All five of the couple’s responded that the results did reflect their experience and that it was very helpful seeing the experiences the other couples described. Two participants, who were marriage and family therapists, requested the discussion section as well, because they felt this study would benefit their work with remarried couples in their practice. One couple looked at the results and stated that they seemed to be one of the “happier” couples in the study. It seemed there was a lot of empathy and understanding toward the experiences described by other participants. One participant felt grateful that she was not alone in her feelings.

Limitations and Generalizability There were several limitations to the proposed study. The first is that the study did not consist of a random sample. Rather it was a purposive, small sample of fifteen couples that were predominantly from a mid to upper class socioeconomic bracket and, except for two African American couples, Caucasian. Therefore, the study did not reflect the experiences of minorities or remarriages in lower socioeconomic brackets. Culture and financial security could potentially have their own impact on each couple’s experience of remarriage. Second, the couples discussed difficult topics and may have censored how they talked about them in front of each other. Third, the researcher was part of a remarried couple and held her own biases as to how she experienced remarriage.

It was difficult not to impose her own preconceptions on the couples’ narratives. Using

31 the constructivist approach to grounded theory helped the researcher to remain aware of potential biases. Lastly, there are multiple theories that could be used to interpret the findings of this study but only self psychology was used. Therefore, a different approach may have yielded different interpretations of the data.

Statement on Protecting the Rights of Human Subjects Before beginning the research, a comprehensive proposal of the study was submitted to ICSW’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. Prior to conducting the interviews, couples were verbally informed as to some of the potential risks involved.

These risks were also outlined in the consent form that each couple signed before participating in the interview.

Potential risks included having a negative emotional response to a question posed or an increase in distress as the interview progressed. Participants were cautioned that the researcher would not always know what might be a sensitive topic and inadvertently bring up an area of unresolved conflict with the couple. In order to reduce this potential risk, the researcher carefully monitored the couple for adverse reactions when asking a question. When there was obvious discomfort the researcher would gently switch to another topic or let the participant know that they did not have to answer the question.

The participant could also choose to end the interview at any time. No one terminated the interview prematurely, but several couples cried during the session or became angry with their partner. One person walked away for a few minutes to regroup. Couples were also offered three free debriefing sessions if they continued to feel distressed at the end of the interview.

32 In order to ensure privacy, the couple was either seen in the researcher’s office or at their home in a room that was quiet and undisturbed by other family members.

Confidentiality was guarded by keeping all research materials in a locked file cabinet that only the researcher could access. Couples were identified by a number on the audio tape and the transcription. Recordings were transcribed by the researcher as soon as possible after the interview was finished and then destroyed. At the completion of the study, data were disposed of by shredding/deleting all transcripts and deleting any electronic files pertaining to the study.

33

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS Introduction The results of the study are broken down into six categories. These categories represent the main themes found in regard to the remarried couple’s experience within the context of the blended family. Some of these categories are also composed of properties, which help to explain the categories further.

The first category is Going to the Chapel. Each couple interviewed talked about what it was like to get married to their spouse and the feelings around it. Experiences varied among the couples, but three distinct properties emerged from the narratives.

Couples talked about getting caught up in falling in love again and quickly marrying, or being apprehensive about marrying again and, therefore, taking their time to do so. They also discussed how the children influenced how they felt about their new partner. The couples who married quickly were categorized under the property Full Steam Ahead.

Only four out of the 15 couples fell under this property. The majority of the couples interviewed, who talked about the fear of failing again and worried that they were not skilled enough to make a relationship work, were under the property Cold Feet. The delineation between these two properties was based on speed of remarriage because all couples expressed some trepidation about marrying again. The third property was the

34 Children’s Influence. It described how the children affected both the parent and the new spouse in their decision to marry.

The second category is Loyalty and it is divided into three properties. These properties are My Needs Come Last, Caught in the Middle, and We Are Better than Them. This category is about the multiple loyalties that remarried couples have to manage when living in a blended family. The first property, My Needs Come Last, depicts the stepparents who expressed that they felt the children’s needs were always put ahead of theirs. This led to resentment; they felt unimportant to their spouse. The next property, Caught in the Middle, addresses how the spouse who brought children into the marriage can feel conflicted between meeting the needs of their spouse and the children.

This can feel like a no-win situation for this spouse, because meeting the children’s needs seems to feel like a betrayal of the stepparent’s needs and vice versa. The last property, We Are Better than Them, demonstrates how the presence of the ex-spouse affects the couple. Interestingly, the ex-spouse may be viewed as a common adversary that brings the couple together. But sometimes the ex-spouse also caused tremendous frustration, as some couples stated that the ex-spouse would do things to sabotage their relationship and the family’s functioning. The majority of the couples interviewed conveyed a sense of superiority toward the ex-spouse.

The third category is The Influential Ex. Each couple in this sample talked about how the presence of the ex-spouse affected their marriage in some detrimental way.

Sometimes it was openly aggressive, while at other times it seemed more passive. The children brought the ex-spouse’s presence into the household by sometimes mimicking

35 what they had heard the ex-spouse say. The couples talked about feeling frustrated and unable to control the ex-spouse’s influence on them.

The fourth category is Bite My Tongue; it conveys the idea that the couple feels constrained in ways that stop them from being able to openly communicate with one another. Nearly half of the couples stated that there were times that, because of loyalties to their children, ex-spouse, or spouse, they would have to bite their tongue. They had to be careful to not talk badly about the ex-spouse in front of the children even if it meant withholding information and allowing a misunderstanding to continue. They had to be cautious with one another around parenting issues because of differing loyalties to the children.

The fifth category is about role confusion in blended families: Who Am I Supposed to Be? This category addresses the role of the stepparent. All stepparents in this sample talked about feeling uncertain, at times, as to what was expected of them in the family. This caused conflict between the couple when there were different expectations between them.

The last category is called Strong Emotions and has four properties; they are Belonging, Guilt, Anger, and Appreciation. These were the four emotions that seemed to come up the most in the situations that the remarried couples described. The stepparent talked the most about feeling as though they did not belong, at times, in the family and did not experience a sense of safety in the marriage. The spouses who brought in children not only felt guilty about the impact of the divorce on the children but also about the “burden� they placed on the new spouse by having to raise the children. Anger arose as an emotion with both spouses when they talked about things they felt they had no control

36 over. Appreciation was expressed mainly by the spouse who had children to the stepparent because of all they did for them. This appreciation appeared to help the couple cope with the difficulties associated with blended family living.

The results use examples that contain larger pieces of conversation between the couple than may normally be expected when using grounded theory. The basis for this is that the study was about understanding the experience of the couple and not each individual in the couple. Examples including part of the narrative from each couple highlight how the couple interacts together when confronted with different scenarios that are inherent to blended family living. It is also points out how each spouse may feel strong emotions that are in conflict with the other and inhibit communicating effectively.

Going to the Chapel Introduction Every couple interviewed talked about the feelings they had for each other when they first met and what it was like for them when they decided to marry. They described the process of dating from the vantage points of being the spouse who brought children into the marriage and the spouse who decided to marry someone who had children. The spouse with children emphasized how careful they were when they introduced their children to the new spouse and that it was important to them that their new spouse liked the children and could be a good parent. The spouse who did not bring children into the marriage explained what it was like to meet the children for the first time and the challenges they faced with the children while dating. Each couple also talked about their wedding day and how it was different than their previous wedding. Many of them talked

37 about the children’s reactions during and after the wedding. When talking about this process of “going to the chapel,” three distinct properties emerged from the data: Full Steam Ahead, Cold Feet, and The Children’s Influence.

The first property is Full Steam Ahead. The majority of the couples described an overwhelming rush of love for their spouse as they were dating, but five couples talked about feeling that “love conquers all” when it came to blending the family. They were very optimistic that everything would just work itself out and did not worry about what blended family life might be like for them. Four out of the five were simple stepfamilies.

These couples dated each other a year or less before marrying and were pregnant at the altar or shortly after.

Full Steam Ahead The following examples highlight how these couples went into their marriages quickly and optimistically, and did not think about what being a blended family might entail.

Woman: We didn’t need to rush things, but there was an overwhelming wave of love [and] we rushed everything. We immersed ourselves completely in this relationship and then stopped to think about it sort of later.

-------------------------------------------Woman: At first I was cautious when dating, but after two weeks we fell in love and I just dived right in. I saw other people in blended families doing it, so why couldn’t we?

-------------------------------------------Woman: It was just too good for words. The myth that our love is going to take care of everything just overpowered us.

----------------------------------------These couples also talked about how much they liked the idea that their spouse was a “package deal” and that they would have an instant family together.

38 Woman: I don’t remember thinking anything except that he was really cute. And he had a little child. I actually had been through a physical trauma that rendered me unable to have children. At least that’s what I’d been told as far as I knew.

Who knew I was able to have children? Apparently I was, because I was pregnant within 15 months!

Man: We both wanted to have children together right from very early on in the relationship. And we had even planned to have children at a certain point.

We just kind of got ahead of ourselves. [Laughs.] It became apparent quickly, that, oh, this is for real.

-------------------------------------------Woman: I kind of liked it because I always wanted to have kids but I never got married and I hadn’t had kids. And so I thought, well, this is a kind of way [begins to cry] for me to have at least some part of it. But it is not the same.

-------------------------------------------Most of the couples above were in simple stepfamilies where only one spouse brought children into the marriage. Some of their comments already hint at how their expectations were not met and that “love did not conquer all.” The following category on Loyalty talks more about this.

The other 10 couples also talked about feeling excited and happy when they met their spouse, but there was always an underlying sense of caution. They expressed feeling hopeful the relationship would succeed but also having cold feet and fears of failing again. These couples dated their partner for a longer time, and were very careful introducing them to their children. They talked more in depth about what they wanted in a relationship and what went wrong in the previous relationship. They believed they tempered their expectations to be more realistic. These 10 couples are included under the property Cold Feet.

Cold Feet Below are examples of couples who felt fearful of failing in this next relationship.

39 Man: Well, it didn’t work out the first time, so I was worried it wouldn’t work out the second time. I really wanted it to. I loved her [wife] when I first met her, but I really didn’t want to get married. But we did obviously.

-------------------------------------------Woman: I remember we both said something to the effect of, there is absolutely no possibility for failure there. We have to go into this and there is one way and one way only, because we could not do this to our kids again much less ourselves.

-------------------------------------------Woman: I didn’t have cold feet in the traditional way, but thinking OK I’m going to have to take this one step at a time, and since I hadn’t expected to get married, II have to take this one day at a time, and if there was a day where I felt questioning about it, it was is my life better with him or without him? So, I’m still here.

---------------------------------------------Woman: After he proposed to me, I think I said to him, can I tell him in the morning? Because I had said yes before (to her ex-husband) when my heart said no.

Interviewer: So you remember there being a slight hesitation.

Woman: Yeah, because you know when you make a mistake and it affects people so much. I remember telling my parents that I was going to leave my ex, and my father said to me after, “So what did your vows mean anyway?”

---------------------------------------------Another aspect of this property was that the new spouse was looked at as a potential parent first and then a spouse. The spouse with children waited to introduce their new spouse to the children until they felt confident about the relationship. The spouse without children was also very careful when considering committing to a relationship that would include someone else’s children.

Woman: Well I remember being very, very careful. Very careful. Right. I dated other people too, and I did not flaunt them in front of my children. Their father was very much present and I didn’t want to confuse them, and they were very young. By the time he [husband] and I got married it was clear this is who we were [as a couple].

----------------------------------------------

40 Man: Right in the beginning one of my own personal things was the person has to love my kids as much as they love me. Otherwise it can’t be a relationship. I made that pretty clear from the beginning, and she accepted my children and I love her for that.

---------------------------------------------Man: She asked me a long time ago, “Do you think that my kid’s can feel like your own,” and I said, I think they could. It was weird.

---------------------------------------------Another characteristic of this property was that these couples were overwhelmed by the idea of blending the family. It felt like it would be an impossible task. This was felt especially by the couples that were creating a complex stepfamily by both bringing children into the marriage.

Man: It wasn’t a question about her. It was a question of, wow, this is a lot to do.

A lot!

---------------------------------------------Woman: My degree is in family and marriage, but I specifically went to a family training at some point when we were dating. It was far enough along that I felt comfortable calling you [husband] about it. But we weren’t engaged. Somewhere in there I remember calling him and saying, I want to go home and climb under the covers and put them over my head and just stay there! I am so overwhelmed by what I am learning.

---------------------------------------------Man: In a lot of this 5 years [of dating] we considered it impossible trying to put our five kids together.

Woman: We thought it was impossible. It’s overwhelming. It’s so difficult!

---------------------------------------------The last aspect that created a sense of caution for some of these couples was that they were still not emotionally separated from the previous spouse. The couples felt that they met their new spouse too early and that they were not ready to commit to another relationship.

Woman: He met me too quick. He was only really separated 6 months before he met me. He needed some of his own space.

41

Man: I guess it was just my own kind of clock. After I got divorced, somehow it didn’t feel right to me to get married 6 months after I got divorced, so I felt like I needed time, but I didn’t think there was much doubt in my mind it was going to happen.

---------------------------------------------Woman: [She recently ended her first marriage.] And the timing was weird because I was like, what the hell? I’m not going to get into another marriage.

Marriage sucked. I wanted to make sure and I think it was a leap of faith.

The Children’s Influence The last property in this category is The Children’s Influence. The children affected each of the partners during dating and at the wedding ceremony. The children expressed their own opinions about what they thought of the new spouse. Sometimes there was a warm welcome but other times there was hostility. Several of the couples talked about the children being depressed and crying or angry and sullen at the ceremony.

The following examples illuminated how the children’s reaction to the new spouse affected both of the partners.

Man: So my stepdaughter was like—when I would show up she was like, evil.

Woman: She [her daughter] describes it that way now. She says, “Oh yeah, I remember when I was evil. I remember when I had a plan to totally destroy him.”

Man: I told her that I want you to understand that no matter how mean you are to me I’m not going to leave. I’m here because I love your mother and I hope you and I can have a great relationship. And it got better significantly after that.

---------------------------------------------Man: It was really easy. My son really took to you [his new spouse] and you were fond of him, so it worked our really well.

Woman: Yes, he [stepson] is incredibly low maintenance—really a nomaintenance kid.

----------------------------------------------

42 Woman: My stepdaughter kept asking him [her spouse], “When are you and Mom getting back together?” and stuff like that. She wants them to get back. I can see that. She was five at the time [when she met her], but now it’s the same. She still goes through, I don’t like you and you are not my mom!

---------------------------------------------Woman: We were doing a little play therapy [with her daughter and her Barbie dolls]. She told me that she wished that Barbie and her daughter lived alone without Ken. So I can’t remember how I responded to that but….

Man: She adapted pretty well. She brought a friend over one time and she pointed to me and said, “He’s OK, you can climb on him!” [Laughs.]

---------------------------------------------These examples illustrated the challenges both partners faced when introducing their children to the new spouse. It appeared that the more easygoing and welcoming the children were, the less strain there was on the couple.

Something brought up by many of the couples was how the children acted on the day of the wedding. Although there were a few couples who reported the children being well behaved during the ceremony, many of them experienced some conflict with the children at the wedding. The following are examples of these difficulties: Woman: The kids totally checked out the day of our wedding. Both in a negative and low-energy kind of way. The only thing I could read was that they were just so overwhelmed that he was actually getting married and they had to put away any kind of reconciliation with their mom.

---------------------------------------------Woman: One of the girls [her stepdaughter], I’m told by a friend of mine, cried in the bathroom during a good part of the reception. I think the whole wedding just made the whole thing really real for her. While we were dating she was fine, but as we got closer to the wedding, things just got more difficult.

----------------------------------------------

43 Conclusion All of the couples in this sample talked about what it was like thinking about getting married to their spouse. Five of these couples got married in a short period of time and started families of their own immediately. They entered into their marriages without a lot of deliberation or concern about if the relationship would survive until after they had been married. The other 10 couples had much more trepidation when thinking about marrying a second time. There was hesitation and stalling even though they obviously cared about their spouse while they were dating. These couples talked a great deal about how they were afraid to fail again and took steps with their spouse to try to prevent this.

Interestingly, the couples who were Full Steam Ahead and had been married for more than two years talked about the difficulties that came up and the huge learning curve they had. The couples that were Cold Feet did not appear to have an easier time of it even when they were more cognitively prepared. They still felt they were taken by surprise emotionally. The children had an influence on the relationship from the very beginning when they started dating up to the wedding ceremony and as the next categories depict beyond that as well.

44 Loyalty Introduction Remarried couples talked about having to manage loyalties to many different people in the blended family. The loyalties that they felt were not always in line with what their spouse felt. They had a difficult time meeting their own needs as a couple and those of their children. Many times it felt as though they were caught in between these loyalties and felt forced to choose between their spouse and their children. The new spouse often protested that they felt as though they came last in the family hierarchy.

Continued loyalty to the ex-spouse was also a factor. In dealing with the ex-spouse, the couple fostered a sense of being the “home team,� as there were often comparisons made and competition with the ex-spouse. Three properties became apparent when looking in depth at loyalties. They are My Needs Come Last, Caught in the Middle, and We Are Better than Them.

My Needs Come Last My needs come last really speaks to the stepparent. In eight out of the 15 couples, the stepparent talked about how they felt they came last in the family. They talked about having to make sacrifices and prioritize their stepchildren. Some stepparents understood and were comfortable doing so while others had resentment. The stepparents with less resentment seemed to have a clearer understanding of their role in the family and felt more appreciated by their spouse for helping out with the children. The effect of roles and appreciation is described in more detail in the following categories.

45 The next examples are of stepparents talking about how they felt prioritizing the children.

Woman: Well, you know your needs get put—you are kind of at the bottom of the totem pole: in a household kids’ needs are at the top. Kids are prioritized, which is perfectly fine because he is their dad. But, sometimes because of that connection you do feel that you are somehow just left behind and don’t mean to be. There’s a pack order. And he would be alpha dog, and then there’s the kids, and then there’s the dogs, and I’m somewhere below the cats.

---------------------------------------------Man: My brother was having his kid baptized and my stepson had a soccer game also that day. My wife was sick so I show up [at the ex-spouse’s house] and he asks me where my wife and the boys [his stepsons] are? My response was, can’t he [stepson] miss a soccer game because of the baptism? But then it turns into telling my stepson he has to miss a game for me. So we end up going to the soccer game.

---------------------------------------------Stepparents also remarked on how difficult it was to protect the time they had with their spouse from the encroachment of the children. The biological parent enjoyed whatever extra time they could get with their children, but the stepparent often resented any “extra” time outside of the custody agreement. This could become a strain on the couple as the stepparent felt that the need for quality time with their spouse was put behind the needs of the children.

Woman: I don’t get my husband to myself. We put the kids to bed at a certain time, so we have a lot of “us” time. Sometimes it may not be us as much as I’d like, but I understand also that he has to spend time with the kids even though he does see the kids every day. There are times his ex may call and say, “Can you watch the kids on a weekend she would have them?” And he will say, “What do you think?” And I’ll say no! Because I want to have that weekend, and its only 2 days of the week that we don’t see the kids.

--------------------------------------------Woman: [Talking about asking her husband for one weekend a month without her stepchildren.] I didn’t get it [the weekends] as frequently as I wanted, and that created tension between us because I always felt like I had to ask for that weekend to be scheduled, and I didn’t want to ask. I just wanted it to happen and be baked into the schedule.

46 ---------------------------------------------Woman: I enjoy our times together when the kids are not here. If for some reason their mom picks them up late, I get disappointed.

---------------------------------------------It is important to point out that while the stepparent desired to have more time with their spouse, the spouse with children felt conflicted because any extra time with their children was cherished. Although they too felt relieved, at times, to have their children out of the house, the majority of them reported an immediate sense of loss when their children walked out the door. This was difficult for the stepparent to relate to and served to make them feel more as though they “came last.”

Stepparents seemed to get into conflict with their partners the majority of the time over how to discipline the children. Many of the stepparents talked about how easy their spouse was on the children and that they resented it. It felt as though their needs came last as the biological parent had the final say in disciplining the kids and it did not always agree with what the stepparent wanted.

Woman: I would say you are grounded, and they would say, “Oh, wait until Dad gets home!” Then he would come home and they would say, “She yelled at me,” and he would say, “Did you yell at them?” And I would say yes, and then he would make me the bad one. He was worried they would go running to their mother, and I just took it all—and after a few years of this, and crying every day, saying it’s not right, it’s just not right: you’ve got to support me! It was very hard for him to do that.

---------------------------------------------Man: I was always a little bit of a step on the side, in terms of discipline or judgments or anything. What she said and what their father said would always trump what I [said]. Not that I didn’t have any influence, but it was always clear of the three heads of the family, I was third.

---------------------------------------------Man: She has overridden my decisions a few times. Where I’ll say absolutely not, you cannot do that [to his stepdaughter], and then she [stepdaughter] will say to her mom, “but I just want to do that,” and she [his spouse] will say, “OK,”

47 knowing that I’ve already said no! That just infuriates me. I mean it completely undermines any kind of trust or respect that I work to build up.

----------------------------------------------

Caught in the Middle This property addresses the feelings of the spouse who has children. They felt that they were put between their kids and spouse and forced to choose one over the other. It was a no-win situation, as choosing either the children or the spouse felt disloyal. Nine couples talked about feeling Caught in the Middle. The following examples portray how this feeling affected the couple.

Man: So I would come home from work off the train and I would be really conflicted about going home. I just didn’t want to walk in that house, because everybody would come to me. She did this and he did that and I was always—I felt that I was always in the middle until finally my wife gave me the ultimatum and after that it was OK. It was still difficult, but it was OK. Everybody knew what was expected of them then.

---------------------------------------------Woman: [Talking about the kids loving their stepdad as she loves him.] I’m so in the middle and I hate it. They [her children] deserve to feel however they are going to feel. I can’t force something that I feel, because they have to feel it.

---------------------------------------------Man: I think you are always—in a stepfamily, in moments you are caught between your kids and new spouse. I think that’s unavoidable, but I think my wife makes it as easy as possible. That would be about as hard as possible. So that definitely affects things around here. That’s an issue.

---------------------------------------------This next example is of a spouse who learned how to navigate through feeling caught in the middle.

Woman: If my daughter is upset with my husband and she comes to me, I’ll tell her that you need to talk to him about that. And the same thing with him. He needs to go to her. Everyone’s got their relationships here, and I try very much to think, hey, no special considerations because these kids are from a previous marriage.

48 ---------------------------------------------Sometimes it is not only the children and the new spouse that the biological parent feels caught between but the ex-spouse also ends up being part of the problem. In these examples the ex-spouse comes between the couple because of how they discipline the children.

Woman: You [husband] and my ex are so different that I’m in the middle all of the time.

Man: In what regard?

Woman: You are so much more strict. You are so much more rigid. He [her ex] is so much more, like all right, that’s all right. Go with it. That’s OK. They [the children] can do it. And you are like…no.

---------------------------------------------Man: The kids felt they had license to do whatever they wanted [once their mom told them that his wife couldn’t spank them]. It got to the point when my daughter really acted up in front of the whole family—my mom and sisters were there. She told my wife, “You can’t reprimand me!” And I had to let my daughter know that, yes, she could because I said so, and I had to tell my ex that, yes, she could because I said so.

---------------------------------------------Man: She [ex-spouse] was always was waiting in the wings and telling the kids, “If you don’t like it there you can always come here.” So that was my dilemma. If I was too hard on them they would go to their mother, and if I was too hard on my wife I would lose her.

----------------------------------------------

We are Better than Them Twelve out of the 15 couples talked about the ex-spouse in a way that implied they felt somewhat superior. This seemed to create a feeling of being a team together.

The couples united against a common “enemy” and this may have helped strengthen the relationship. It also appeared to make their relationship feel special and protected.

49 The following are some examples of this “team” feeling couples experienced.

Considering how difficult it was to agree on parenting the children, it may be a relief and a source of strength for the couple to be able to hold common ground on how they view the ex-spouse. It also brought out protective feelings in the new spouse towards the spouse that had difficulties with their ex.

Man: Oh yeah, I defend the hell out of her. I think that’s when I get the most freaked out. I am completely and totally biased. Home team. She has never done anything wrong in that relationship [previous marriage]. He [her ex-spouse] doesn’t know what he’s talking about!

-------------------------------------------Woman: We are pretty much in agreement about how we feel about my ex, so it’s not like I have animosity towards my ex, and he [husband] is like, “Why are you being so hard on him?”

Man: Yeah, it’s for valid reasons that she has. In his mind, I think if she is in any way an OK person that means that some of the blame for the failure of their relationship must lie with him. But if she is the bad person and she had done everything wrong, then he doesn’t have any responsibility whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------Part of what created this “team” feeling was not just that they were in agreement about how they perceived the ex-spouse but that they saw themselves as better than them.

Most couples talked about the ex-spouse disdainfully or mockingly. Here are some examples of this.

Man: Well, he [wife’s ex-spouse] has an American significant other so he must be speaking English to her. [Ex-spouse was bilingual.]

Woman: Well, he never hears anything.

Man: [Laughs.]

Interviewer: So he never remarried?

Woman: He has had a live-in girlfriend now for the last 2 or 3 years.

50 Man: Who is the most wonderful person in the world and we can’t understand it!

How does he deserve her?

Woman: Well I’ve been hearing about a lot of problems recently [from her kids].

Interviewer: Did you ever feel there was a competition between your households [with the ex-spouse]?

Woman: I didn’t feel that because I knew that I was better, and he [husband] did too.

---------------------------------------------Woman: The 3 years we lived in Canada her father rarely saw her [her daughter].

Man: It’s also his attitude. Let’s face it.

Woman: yeah.

Man: His attitude is not warm and welcoming. When she would visit him they would either shop or watch TV. Woman: They always shopped. That was my ex’s big thing.

Man: That’s what they do. I mean, I don’t understand it, but that’s what they do.

Crazy. When someone would say where is K? [his stepdaughter] I’d say at her dad’s. It always felt funny for me to say that. [Laughs.] You know because she was with her dad but you know, he’s certainly not playing the role like I would like him to play.

---------------------------------------------Woman: Their father was and kind of still is a sort of difficult, anxious guy, and I think in everyone’s mind were all better off without him. So they [the children] don’t have a romanticized view of him. They are pretty realistic about that. I mean, [being sarcastic] I am the perfect one of course.

Man: Of course.

---------------------------------------------One last facet of how this “team feeling” is created is by the shared story the couple has about the ex-spouse. The new spouse inherits the story that has been constructed around the demise of the previous marriage. Most of the couples interviewed did not seem to doubt the accuracy of their spouse’s perception of the ex-spouse. It was

51 clear to them that their spouse was the victim in the story and the ex-spouse the villain.

There were many examples of these stories about the ex-spouse, but they were too lengthy to be included in the examples.

Conclusion Loyalties for remarried couples can either get in the way of the couple being able to meet each other’s needs or help them unite, depending on the situation. When the children are involved, they each have different feelings towards them. The biological parent has strong loyalties to his/her children while the spouse cares for the children, in part, because they are the spouse’s children. The biological parent feels as though he/she gets stuck in the middle trying to please both children and spouse while the stepparent may feel his/her needs are put last. The presence of the ex-spouse can also create a situation in which the biological parent feels caught in the middle, but the majority of the time couples seemed to bond together over the adversity they felt towards the ex-spouse.

This adversity is sustained through the shared story they maintain together about the exspouse.

The Influential Ex Introduction All of the couples talked about the ex-spouse having an influence on their relationship. The ex-spouse sometimes inadvertently and other times consciously placed restraints on the couple that caused the couple to feel frustrated and stuck, at times. The equanimity of the household would be interrupted by the children bringing in the presence of the ex-spouse. Having an amiable relationship seemed to help put less stress

52 on the couple’s relationship. If the relationship was contentious, the couple talked about bracing themselves at times for what was to come up next.

In the following examples couples talk about how disruptive the ex-spouse could be to the household. Given the challenges of blended family life, it became a source of aggravation when adding the ex-spouse in created more problems for the couple.

Woman: My ex-husband was not happy about it [her marriage]. I don’t know about the children, but he was not crazy about the whole idea, although he was married at that time. He was always making trouble—coming late, not showing up when he was supposed to, kind of distracting our family.

--------------------------------------------Man: It is more behaviors that he [ex-spouse] instills in the kids. Little things, like he pays them to do chores and I’m like you are kidding me right!? You give the kid five bucks to take the garbage out? Come on! That kind of stuff is just crazy.

Some of it is his habits. Years ago some movie was coming out and he took the kids, both of them, to the midnight show on a school night. And I’m like, umm it’s a movie? They have school!

Woman: And what are you teaching them? You are setting a precedent [with the kids], and he does this all of the time!

Man: He does stuff like this all of the time, and it’s just insane.

Woman: It makes us nuts.

---------------------------------------------Man: I do not trust her [ex-spouse] as a co-parent at all. I think she will throw me under the bus the first chance she gets, and history has proven that way too many times. A good example of this was that thing about a job. I spoke with her [his ex-spouse] about how my daughter ought to have a job. She agreed with me, but when my daughter protested she completely backed down. So when I went to tell my daughter she tells me that, “Mom doesn’t think I need a job.”

---------------------------------------------Another way that the ex-spouse comes into the couple’s relationship is through the presence of the children. Children bring the voice of the ex-spouse into the home with them. Sometimes it can be innocuous, but other times it may be full of the ex-spouse’s anger and hurt. In these examples, the anger is directed at the stepparent.

53 Man: My wife heard my daughter shouting out some nasty things to her. She knew that was not my daughter talking. She heard that from someone else. We knew from the other end. We believe from how my ex handled things that she was not as careful to stop being negative about the other spouse. So one of the things in our parenting agreement, it says that each parent shall make an effort to make a positive environment about the ex-spouse. We had some duties not to be negative about the ex.

Woman: Which she didn’t abide by.

Man: So the little glimpse we got…well, not so much little. My son told us a lot about the things she was saying. She was bitter and maybe not always going with the healthy environment.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I had more influence [with disciplining the children] until his ex-wife told the kids that I shouldn’t be smacking them. I don’t “smack” the kids.

Man: She [ex-spouse] told the kids their stepmother shouldn’t spank them.

Woman: And we don’t spank the kids. We may smack them on their butt and stuff and that’s it! So from that time on I felt like I lost a bit of power because the kids would turn around to me and say, well, “Mom said that you shouldn’t hit me.”

---------------------------------------------The presence of the ex-spouse is also expressed in how similarly the children may look and act. This seems to affect the biological parent more as they are familiar with facial expressions and habits of their ex-spouse. Here is one example of this.

Woman: It’s painful at times because he [her son] is so similar [to his dad] and the things that I hate. That really deteriorated our relationship—my son has so many of these characteristics. And it’s tough, but I’m trying to influence him. But he’s just like his dad.

---------------------------------------------Some of the couples talked about “bracing” themselves or expecting the worst from the ex-spouse. It was a kind of anticipatory anxiety that caused tension between them and in the household. They recognized patterns as to how the ex-spouse might react so they prepared themselves for it. The following examples demonstrate this.

54 [This couple talks about a trip they took to Australia with their six children the day after Christmas as a way to help the family come together.]

Woman: This was a major trip. We spent the other half of the time at a summer house, which was about an hour and a half south of Melbourne.

Man: What about the impact of my ex-spouse on this? It was a freaking disaster!

Woman: Yeah.

Man: In that respect, I didn’t handle it well.

Interviewer: What happened?

Man: How could I do this to her? I’m not doing anything to you!

Interviewer: She felt you were doing something?

Man: I was taking away her children over the Christmas season.

Woman: And we agreed to leave the day after Christmas so that we didn’t upset her Christmas. Keep in mind that she gets them every Thanksgiving, every Christmas Eve, every Christmas morning. And it was ridiculous, but it always is. I’m stealing myself a little bit now because we really want his son to come live with us this summer and we’ve been talking about it for a couple years so it’s not abrupt [for the ex-spouse], but who knows how she’ll respond.

--------------------------------------------Man: If my ex had been in another city it would have been a much better relationship, marriage in our house, but she was always lurking in the shadows, telling the kids you can always come with me and I’ll do this for you and that for you.

The presence of the ex-spouse also was held up as a measuring stick by both spouses. It was difficult not to make comparisons between households, parenting styles, the new spouse and the ex-spouse, and how well the couple’s life and marriage seemed to be going in comparison to that of the ex-spouse. Here are some examples of these comparisons.

55 Woman: This house is the rules house. This is the chores house. This is where things come down. This is where all of the shit happens. That’s here. Theirs [the ex-spouse and his new wife] is X box and sleep-over.

Man: Yeah, he’s fun daddy.

---------------------------------------------Woman: He [her husband] was always the solid one and their [the children’s] father [and her ex-spouse] was not solid and dependable. He [her husband] was the base.

---------------------------------------------Woman: My ex would get stressed out very easily [with parenting]. He would want to divide and conquer. You take one kid and I’ll take the other. Everyone together was too much and he couldn’t handle it. My husband, on the other hand, can get all the boys together and handle the stress and get them all playing a game and just be like one of them, and it drives my ex crazy sometimes because he’s like, oh, he’s Mr. Fun Guy! ---------------------------------------------Woman: My ex remarried and that was very helpful. We both prayed that his ex might but she hasn’t. And I think that was a huge issue for his kids. They saw their dad moving on, and enjoying life and being happy, and their mother was not. She wasn’t moving on and she wasn’t really happy. And I think they were so angry with you and me with that.

----------------------------------------------

Conclusion The presence of the ex-spouse seems to be “lurking in the shadows” of the remarried couple’s relationship. They enter into the household through the children and hold power over the relationship by decisions that are made about the children. They can disrupt the moments of equanimity in the blended family, and sometimes these interruptions can feel purposeful. Both spouses are affected in some way by the exspouse and cannot help but make comparisons with the ex-spouse. The spouse formerly married to the ex-spouse feels somewhat gratified if they perceive that their life and relationship as better than that of their ex-spouse’s. The new spouse appears to want to

56 succeed the ex-spouse, and as mentioned later in the property Belonging, they gain a sense of security when they feel they have been with their spouse longer and are still happy together.

Bite My Tongue Introduction Nine out of the 15 couples interviewed talked about how they felt that they could not talk openly about issues with each other or around the children. There was a sense of having to “bite their tongue “in order to protect the children’s relationship with the exspouse. The stepparent also felt that they had to honor their spouse’s wish not to talk about certain things with the children even though it went against their nature to do so or perpetuated something that they knew was not true. The stepparent was careful to acquiesce to their spouse’s parenting style when they disagreed with it in order to not hurt the relationship.

The next few examples illustrate how the stepparent feels the need to “bite their tongue” in order to protect the children. Even to the extent that they allowed misunderstandings to perpetuate.

Woman: When I knew they [stepchildren] were having a hard time with their mom it was just pain.

Man: And you are a professional in the field, so you knew some things not to do.

You knew there were occasions when it was entirely against your better nature but it was time to say something positive about the mom rather than reinforce the negative aspects of her. So something you did over time was that you never beat up or jumped on or criticized my ex when you could have.

Woman: Oh never!

Man: Although you were biting your tongue.

57 ---------------------------------------------Man: What is difficult is knowing that there is a whole group of people [his wife’s ex-spouse’s extended family], especially the ex, that believes I was responsible for all of this. That I came in and stole her away. It does bother me that they are really under this false pretense that I wrecked everything and hopefully someday they won’t sit down with the kids and say here’s what really happened! Then we would have to mend all of that.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I would try to point out where these patterns came up. This just didn’t happen to you [stepson], honey. You didn’t just go away to college and become addicted to alcohol. This was something that was set up for you. Your grandfather [on his mother’s side] used to tell you to get him a beer every hour. That was your job when you would visit him.

Man: Yeah, he [grandfather] would say, “Hey, boy, go get me a beer.

Woman: And he was four or five and I would be on pins and needles as a mother holding my other infant in my arms thinking but, but…no! I didn’t have the power, because I was the stepmom.

--------------------------------------------In this next example, the stepparent finally could not restrain herself from saying something to the children, and she reported that she was greatly relieved after doing so.

In this case, it helped the couple to “set things straight.”

Man: She by both nature and profession is born to process things. Talk about them from certain perspective. I, by nature, am inclined not to.

Woman: And that was really hard on your kids because I often felt like I had a muzzle on, which was just excruciating for me, and when I couldn’t stand it anymore and I would say something, sometimes I would get these looks from the kids like??? I remember one day I just had it. I just kept feeling like the kids were looking at my husband and me as though we had done a terrible thing to their mom. I remember I just looked at the boys and very directly said to them, “You do understand that your dad did not leave your mom for me?” And their eyes were this big because they weren’t accustomed to anybody just saying that.

---------------------------------------------All of the couple’s interviewed talked about the difficulties of parenting together.

One of the aspects of this was that the biological parent felt guilty about the divorce and

58 would try to make it up to the kids while the stepparent saw this as spoiling or being too easy on the children. Couples in which the stepparent learned to “bite their tongue” over these differences in parenting seemed to have less conflict, but it also led to the stepparent feeling some resentment.

Woman: The issue in our marriage was the parenting. I would say we have got to be together, and it was very hard for him [husband] to let go of his promise to his children that they would be a unit. What I was saying about sharing and being equal partners was very important. I would say it and then back off all of those years.

---------------------------------------------Woman: Initially I think he let them get away with more and now as they are growing up maybe not so much. I understand that you feel a little guilty, but this is part of discipline. You are going through this and I’m sure the kids are feeling this way, but they still need discipline!

---------------------------------------------Interestingly, when it came to discipline, the biological parent also learned to restrain themselves when watching the stepparent disciplining the children. The biological parent reported feeling very protective of their kids and had a difficult time not getting upset with their spouse.

Man: There have been those things where I have gone off on one of the kids and as a result you…

Woman: Bristle.

Man: Yeah, I think it’s hard for you to take it, and I don’t think we’ve had that in a while, but I’ll be like, you can’t do that [to his stepchildren] and then suddenly I knew there was something up between you and me. I’d come in the room and you wouldn’t be making eye contact with me or something, and I would say, is it OK for me to do that? And you would say, “It’s just hard for me to hear it sometimes.”

---------------------------------------------Woman: When my daughter was little my husband would be the disciplinarian, and it bothered me a lot. I had a real hard time adjusting to it. And what’s interesting about that is that I paid attention to it very recently and I realized that he always treated her just like he treats his own kids. I didn’t see that because she

59 was my baby and he was the stepfather and I felt like I needed to protect her just in case.

---------------------------------------------Looking back on the couples interviewed, it seemed to be mainly the women, who were the biological parent, having problems with their husband parenting the children.

Not as many men commented on being upset by how their wife was as a stepmother to the children. Although as mentioned in a previous example, some of their ex-spouses did have a problem with the stepmother’s parenting.

Conclusion Remarried couples may feel that they cannot be as open with one another as they would like. The biological parent is generally deferred to with parenting decisions, and the other spouse may not always agree but has to “bite their tongue,” as they feel it is not their place to say something. In order to protect the children, the couple is careful to not talk negatively about the ex-spouse in front of them. Sometimes perceptions are created that do not sit well with the couple, and it is very difficult not to talk about them with the children. In one of these couples, finally speaking up and saying something ended up being a positive step in their relationship with their spouse and the children.

Some of the couple’s expressed hope that someday the children would “get it.”

Meaning that the children would understand the sacrifices they made for them and have a more adult understanding of the nature of their relationship to the ex-spouse. The couple would be able to have the freedom to talk more openly about these difficult and strained relationships with the children. The couples who now had adult children stated that

60 although they could be more open with the children, they still understood the need to protect their relationship with the ex-spouse.

Who Am I Supposed to Be? Introduction According to past research, role ambiguity is common in blended families. In this sample, 12 out of the 15 couples talked about trying to understand what their role was in the family. The spouse talking about it was the stepparent and role confusion surfaced the most when it came to parenting the children. Some stepparents felt they wanted more equity in parenting the stepchildren, and this sometimes led to conflict with their spouse.

Other stepparents felt it important to defer to their spouse but would often be resentful in doing so. It was common that stepparents felt undervalued at times and as if they could not fit it. Their spouse would feel guilty about the burden their kids might be or if their spouse felt left out. In general, it seemed to be a struggle for the couple to understand the stepparent’s role and create appropriate boundaries around it.

The following examples portray the confusion expressed by stepparents when trying to understand their role in the blended family.

Man: I think I’m in this role trying to figure out what is my role?

--------------------------------------------Man: You never really are their father, so you are kind of a friend, hopefully, and consultant, sometimes and sometimes not.

--------------------------------------------Woman: There is an expectation of becoming either the wicked stepmother or trying to insert myself into their lives as a specific role.

---------------------------------------------

61 In this sample there was also a desire by the stepparent to have a close relationship with the stepchildren. They wanted to be involved in their lives and act as a role model. Sometimes this expectation was met by a welcoming stepchild, but many times it was not, and this was a painful disappointment for the stepparent.

Man: I remember being alone with one of my stepdaughters and she was crying sometimes on my shoulder about the fact that her father didn’t love her anymore because he never called her. And all of a sudden that was the time that I could step in and act a little bit like a dad and get a chance to do that.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I want us all to be a family. Like the youngest one says, “Can I call you Mommy?” and that’s fine, whereas with the older one it’s much harder. You try to be family but become the wicked stepmother. The little one says to me, I really love you and then but my sister thinks you are a horrible step-mother.

---------------------------------------------Man: That’s probably the toughest thing for me. Trying to parent somebody who doesn’t give you love back. Another thing that has been difficult is not being involved evenly in parenting, even though I’m supposed to be their parent. But I’m not.

---------------------------------------------Some of the stepparents interviewed had a clear understanding that their spouse was in charge of the children and they deferred to them. It was also apparent to them that they could not ever replace the ex-spouse in the children’s life.

Woman: I wasn’t the primary authority figure in their life. It was him. I was a peripheral figure in the relationship. That’s how I understood it and why it worked.

---------------------------------------------Man: I didn’t act as their father. They had a father. I didn’t need to be their father, but I was a male role model in the house.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I think I was so respectful of her role [the ex-spouse’s] with her girls, and I was clear about its complexities and how much they loved her even when they bitched about her. That didn’t make a difference. I was not their mother and I was not replacing their mother. I didn’t want to be their mother.

----------------------------------------------

62

In the next example this stepmother inherited her stepchild at a very young age and the child’s biological mother had died. This example highlights how important it is to the stepparent to establish their own role and relationship with their stepchildren while honoring the role of the biological parent.

Woman: As a stepparent, I never wanted to put myself in that light of assuming myself in some kind of role that took over the birth parent. No matter what, this is your birth parent. I don’t care how good or bad or twisted or whatever this person was. This person actually birthed you, and I don’t want to take this person over.

And in light of her parents who obviously had so much pain wrapped up in her loss. [Previous spouse died in car crash.] God forbid if they ever saw me trying to rub her out in any way or take her out of the ownership or parentage of this child.

The adoption process was more for me than my stepson. In my eyes it was for me to create that umbilical cord. A metaphorical umbilical cord that I think we really needed. So when the adoption process came to fruition I was able to say, “I chose to be your mother”—to a child who I raised from 16 months on.

--------------------------------------------The last example illustrates that even with the best intentions of trying to not “replace” the ex-spouse’s role with the children, the stepparent can inadvertently cross a boundary that creates reverberations within the blended family.

Woman: So my 10-year-old son did something in school and he called my husband and told the school he was his dad. I get a text message from my ex about how the children being with him [her husband] two days a week doesn’t count him being dad.

Man: Yeah, and then I got all upset and was like, you know what, I guess I’m not their dad even though I make them breakfast and take them to school!

----------------------------------------------

Conclusion The confusion of who the stepparent is supposed to be in the blended family may cause conflict between the couple. It seemed couples did better together if they came to a mutual understanding of what role the stepparent should take. They also benefitted when

63 the stepparent exceeded what was expected of them with the care of the children. It was helpful when the stepparent felt needed by their stepchildren, and that may have solidified their place in the family. When the stepparent’s expectations were not met and the children did not embrace the stepparent it was a great disappointment to the stepparent. The stepparent also had to exhibit care with not overstepping their bounds and “replacing” the ex-spouse.

Strong Emotions Introduction This next category describes the emotions that are evoked from the situations described in the above categories. These emotions are labeled “strong” because they are overwhelming or difficult for the couple to contain. One woman expressed this idea when she said, “So, cognitively I was very well prepared, but I think one of the surprises was the strength of emotion that you can feel even though your head tells you something else.” Several other people interviewed conveyed the same experience. Two of them were trained marriage counselors and had taken classes on stepfamilies. Not all of the emotions are “difficult.” Some, such as Appreciation, helped the couples get through times of stress. There could also be a flip side to a feeling. For example, in the first property, Belonging, many stepparents talked about feeling left out, but there was the other side of Belonging which was about feeling safe and like a family together.

64 Belonging These couples talked about the effect on them when one partner felt “left out” and it was usually, but not always, the stepparent.

Man: She will make meals for the kids and she will start eating without me if I’m not here, which I never do if she’s not here. It’s definitely them three and me.

---------------------------------------------Man: I just thought it was always hard for you being in some sense an outsider.

Woman: Oh yeah.

Man: And you never acted like one. You never stood back, not wanting to get involved or not wanting to be affected.

Woman: But you feel like one because by the way the connections are, you are automatically kind of an outsider.

---------------------------------------------Man: There’s no way they [his stepchildren] are going to choose a weekend away with their stepdad over a weekend away with their dad. That’s not even a choice for them, but maybe after 10 years…?

Woman: You are not on par with….

Man: No, maybe not on par with [the children’s father], but more considered family, more considered a necessity opposed to just a bonus now.

--------------------------------------------The next two examples show how important it is to the stepparent to feel a sense of belonging within the blended family and how critical it is to them that their stepchildren turn to them.

Woman: My daughter will seek out his opinion on everything from what she’s wearing to, you know, benign things.

Man: That is actually very comforting that she comes to me. She’ll walk right past her mom and come ask me about something and it’s really carved out a place for me in her life.

---------------------------------------------Man: I would say within a year of getting married she [stepdaughter] started calling me dad. She was only five.

65

Woman: But he suggested it because we were having our daughter. You suggested it!

Man: Did I? Woman: Yes, you said, wouldn’t it be neat if she could call me dad when our baby was born so that she would understand that. Yeah, you suggested it, and I thought, well, that’s interesting, and she did it.

Man: Well, that was a self-interested move on my part, wasn’t it? [Laughs.]

Cloaked as our family.

--------------------------------------------The previous examples talk about the sense of belonging that comes from being a family, especially with regard to feeling accepted by the children. The next examples are less focused on the children and more about the new spouses comparing themselves to the previous spouses. There is a sense of security reached when their marriage surpasses the time the ex-spouse was married to their spouse.

Man: We’ve already had far many more good years.

Woman: Nonetheless, I have a few to go.

Man: Are you serious? It actually feels like a benchmark?

Woman: It is. To some extent it is a benchmark. You were with her a long time.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I will be more secure when I get to 11 years because I know that is one more year than she [ex-spouse] had with their relationship.

---------------------------------------------Man: Sometimes when I’m at these parties it’s kind of like…they [his spouse’s extended family] are sweet to me, but they really know him [her ex-spouse] and it’s kind of like I am the weird uncle that shows up.

----------------------------------------------

66 Guilt Another emotion that was frequently experienced was guilt. The biological parent sometimes felt bad about the impact the divorce had on their children and this guilt affected their ability to parent and discipline the children. The new spouse had difficulty, at times, with what they saw as too lenient parenting. The biological spouse also would express guilt over being a “package deal” and that the stepparent had to deal with the continuing issues with the kids and ex-spouse. The stepparent would express guilt if they were perceived as having broken the marriage up or taken the kids away from the previous spouse.

The following examples show how the biological parent’s guilt over the divorce and the resulting leniency with their children can cause conflict with their new spouse. It is interesting to note that these are all stepmothers who give voice to this. Only a few stepfathers mentioned their wives being too easy on the children and did not directly express it.

Interviewer: Your feelings about the kids and divorce...what was that like?

Man: I’d say guilt. My daughter wasn’t in an ideal situation, to say the least, and that’s putting it gently.

Woman: Initially I think he let them get away with more, and now as they are growing up maybe not so much. It was like, I understand that you feel guilty but this is part of discipline. You are going through this and I’m sure the kids are feeling this way, but they still need discipline --------------------------------------------Woman: He initially tried to prove he was a great dad and I would have to talk about it, because I think some of the ways he wanted to do that was to buy them things and my thing was we can’t afford for you to buy them things and the most important thing that they need is that you are there. Period. Just show up.

----------------------------------------------

67 Woman: He does everything for his kids, the laundry, setting the table, getting up from dinner if they need anything. It drives me nuts!

---------------------------------------------The spouse who brings children into the marriage also expresses guilt for being a “package deal” and burdening the new spouse with raising the children and interacting still with the ex-spouse. Here are some examples that depict this.

Woman: I felt that a lot in the beginning. Are you sure you want this? It’s a lot of baggage, I called it, but he says he doesn’t think of my kids as baggage.

---------------------------------------------Woman: I think he was making an enormous commitment to a woman with two children, and I didn’t think about my commitment to his children as much as his to mine, to me and my children. I still think it was more work for him to come to me with my children than for me to join him and his children.

---------------------------------------------This example is less about being burdened by the children. Instead, the spouse expresses guilt over her husband having to interact with her ex-spouse. The new spouse has taken over some of the difficulties she has had with her ex when collecting child support.

Woman: Well, it’s interesting to hear you say that, because I feel like he [the exspouse] has disappeared!

Man: That’s because you are not the one e-mailing him and asking him for money all of the time.

Woman: True enough, which is a total cop out on my part and always has been.

I didn’t mean to put it all on you, even though that’s what happened.

---------------------------------------------Although the examples include only women voicing the guilt they have, many of the men who brought children into the marriage also expressed it but not as directly. They talked more about how appreciative they were of their spouse for taking on their children and ex-spouse.

68 In the last two examples, two stepfathers talk about the guilt that they feel for having more time with their stepchildren than the children’s biological father does. In the first example, the stepparent is quite empathic as to how he imagines the ex-spouse feels.

Man: So I was riding with his [ex-spouse’s] son on bikes to school first thing in the morning, just me and him [stepson], and it just must have been heart wrenching for him [ex-spouse]. It would have been for me. I would associate, with the person, as having taken my family apart, and now he is riding off with my son?

---------------------------------------------Man: Well, I felt sympathetic for him. We took the kids away from him. His kids. As a father I wouldn’t want my kids to go out of the state with some guy I never heard of!

----------------------------------------------

Anger The next property is anger and this emotion was elicited from situations the remarried couple felt they had little control over. As one stepparent said, “I have absolutely no control of this, and although I have no control I have to hear about it all of the time!” The majority of couples reported feeling either a loss of power over being able to have equity with parenting decisions together or not being able to control the impact of the ex-spouse’s decisions on their relationship.

In the next examples, the stepparent talks about how angry they feel toward their spouse for undermining the parenting they try to do with their stepchildren.

Man: Yeah, she has overridden my decisions a few times where I’ll say absolutely not you cannot do that, and she will say yes, knowing that I’ve said that. That just infuriates me. It completely undermines any kind of trust or respect that I work to build up. That is brutal.

--------------------------------------------Man: I guess that’s frustrating to me. Way back when I remember when I moved in, I’d be mowing the lawn and I’d look through the window and they are

69 in there watching videos and I’m like, you know what? This is ridiculous. Why are they not helping?!

---------------------------------------------With both of these couples, the stepparent felt that the biological parent was being too easy on the kids and slack about discipline because of the guilt about the divorce.

They felt undermined by their spouse and perhaps disrespected. It felt like they had little influence over the kids at times and the biological parent lead in parenting decisions.

The next two examples are about how the ex-spouse’s decisions sometimes made them feel angry and at a loss as to what power or control they had over the situation.

Woman: My ex-husband is very much like, these are the boundaries when the kids are with me and I raise them my way. He’s very into “my space” and you’re not allowed in here, but if the kids are there they will pick up the phone and then I can talk to the kids.

Man: But I think the kids pick up the phone because they know that he won’t and they do this juggling act where he draws the line, they pick up the line.

Woman: Which I hate! If he calls here, I’ll pick up the phone. You have to be cordial.

---------------------------------------------Man: She’s not disruptive. It’s more like kind of passive moments where because she has agreed to something that has some impact on us. I remember you said that those were more intentional than I thought they were.

Woman: I thought it was intentional. The first year we were married my dad died.

I’d gotten a call from my brother saying the hospice workers are telling us that if you want to talk to dad you need to come home tonight, and it was in Iowa—3 hours away. And she [ex-spouse] would not agree to take the girls early so that we could leave. We got out of town four hours later and so it was four hours less time with my dad. I was so upset because she wouldn’t take the girls.

----------------------------------------------

70 Appreciation Much of what remarried couples talked about were the difficulties involved with being in a blended family. One of the strengths that many of the couples commented on that was specific to a remarriage was being able to appreciate the new spouse much more because of how different this relationship was from the previous failed one. The biological spouse also appreciated the stepparent’s willingness to help parent their children and provide a positive role model for them.

In the following examples the new spouse is compared favorably to the exspouse. They are also appreciated for the care they give to the children.

Woman: He’s very different from my ex-husband. As you can see, he’s a very nice, gentle man. He’s not throwing himself around like a lot of guys would. He doesn’t need to command attention from the children. They [her children] are lucky you are so easy.

---------------------------------------------Man: You were always very supportive and at difficult times, especially with my daughter, you were always there to help and she was too drunk to get out of her clothes and throwing up all over the place. It is easier for a woman to help than a father because it’s a teenage daughter who needs to take her clothes off.

---------------------------------------------Woman: The heroes in this situation are my husband and the kid’s stepmother.

They are the rock stars because they put up with teenagers and babies below that, and they do just as much if not more work and love and get zero back most of the time. All the negative they still have to put up with and all the crap that kids can dish out. And you know that they both genuinely love these kids [step-children] and they don’t get unencumbered love that kids give their parents.

---------------------------------------------Woman: He’s very good at adding this level of relaxation and calmness or the humor. It’s huge. Life would be far more serious if they [her children] just spent time with me.

--------------------------------------------Man: I appreciate and I also see how atypical it is going through my one year of singleness of meeting people and dating, etc. You are dating people and you are listening to their opinions on these situations and a lot of women are like, oh,

71 no! They basically talk about kids like they are a curse. She wasn’t like that at all. She was totally positive about it, which allowed me to let my guard down and open up my emotions to her.

---------------------------------------------Woman: My first thought is that we are more appreciative. Just appreciative of each other’s efforts and good points and less….When you come out of a marriage that has been so unhappy for you and you have someone who is not causing those problems, or at least in your perspective. When it doesn’t feel like the other person isn’t participating or creating those issues, I think you are so grateful that.

Man: The appreciation. I think we have a hard time separating ourselves from that part because by nature we are both sort of appreciative. We found somebody that did appreciate good times and bad times.

---------------------------------------------

Conclusion This category is meant to highlight the emotions evoked in situations that are specific to remarried couples. These couples may not be aligned with their loyalties, at times, and unclear about what the boundaries are. In this kind of situation emotions may quickly escalate. Affect regulation seems to be difficult for remarried couples because of the situations a blended family creates.

Summary of the Findings The overall experience described by the couples in this sample was that being a remarried couple in a blended family could be difficult and challenging. These couples came together into an “instant” family with children to care for. Although both spouses agreed that raising the children together was a priority, it had adverse effects on the time and attention that their relationship needed.

72 The results of this study are organized into six categories: Going to the Chapel, Loyalty, The Influential Ex, Bite My Tongue, Who Am I Supposed to Be?, and Strong Emotions. Under the category Going to the Chapel, couples talked about how they felt while dating their spouse and thinking about either remarrying or marrying someone with children. Experiences were divided into three properties: Full Steam Ahead, Cold Feet, and The Children’s Influence. Couples in Full Steam Ahead went into marriage more quickly than those couples under the property Cold Feet. They were not as cautious or did not think in as much depth about what it might mean to be part of a blended family. The last property, The Children’s Influence, depicts how from the very beginning the children’s reaction and attitude to the couple’s relationship will have an effect on both of the spouses.

The category Loyalty portrays how the loyalties that each spouse had to the children greatly differed and created conflicts between them, especially when parenting.

This category also had three properties, which were My Needs Come Last, Caught in the Middle, and We Are Better than Them. The first property, My Needs Come Last, pertains to the stepparent and how they feel like the children’s needs are placed before their own.

The next property, Caught in the Middle, describes how the spouse with children feels caught between the needs of their spouse, children, and ex-spouse. The last property, We Are Better than Them, highlights the “team feeling” that couples described when comparing themselves to the ex-spouse.

The category The Influential Ex illustrates how the presence of the ex-spouse was always in the background of the couple’s marriage. It was a struggle not to make comparisons between the ex-spouse and the new spouse, or feel pitted against the ex-

73 spouse in some kind of competition. The presence of the ex-spouse would come into the household with the children, and the decisions the ex-spouse made in regard to the children sometimes undermined what the couple wanted.

The category Bite My Tongue shows how the couple felt restrained in being able to openly communicate together. The couple felt inhibited in talking about their frustrations with the ex-spouse as they needed to protect the children’s relationship with the other parent. They also felt the need to protect the relationship with their spouse by deferring to them when they disciplined the children. Unfortunately, the inability to communicate openly led to misunderstandings and resentments.

In the category Who Am I Supposed to Be?, couples described feeling confusion over the roles they were to assume in the blended family, especially the new spouse.

Boundaries were also hard to maintain, and unhealthy coalitions were created that emphasized the disparity in loyalties.

The last category, Strong Emotions, represents the emotions that come up during the situations described in the previous categories. The strength of emotions that came up over these differences was unexpected and difficult to contain for both spouses. Many of them described being cognitively prepared but emotionally taken aback. Strong Emotions was divided into four properties: Belonging, Guilt, Anger, and Appreciation. The presence of the last property appeared to be indicative of how well the couples coped and their chances for a successful marriage.

Given this grim picture of the hardships remarried couples in blended families endure, it is not surprising that the literature states that 60% of second marriages end in divorce and that remarried couples in blended families do not generally do well in

74 treatment compared to other couples (Stepfamily Foundation, Inc., 2003; Hampson et al., 1999). What is surprising is that in this particular sample there was a strong determination to make this “second chance” work out. It was impressive how these couples coped and made such a demanding situation into a successful marriage. Both spouses wanted to form a sense of family together and talked about being flexible, taking it day by day, and appreciating each other for hanging in there through it all. One couple stated that the children and difficulties associated with them were the anvil in which they forged the blade of their marriage together.

It should be noted that the couples in this particular sample were obviously successful enough in their marriages to agree to be interviewed and not feel threatened by it. Some couples did openly display strong feelings during the interview though. Several couples had one spouse break down and begin to cry during the interview. The other spouse would move to comfort them. A few couples openly snapped at each other in anger or frustration, and one spouse walked out of the room and had to leave the interview for a moment. Many of these couples talked about being “in it” and looked forward to the time when the children would be out of the house and there would be less conflict.

The variations between the couples interviewed could be a result of how well the children behaved, how accepting they were of the new spouse, and how amiable a relationship the couple had with the ex-spouse. One couple stood out from the rest because they had a “low maintenance kid” and a remarkably easy relationship with the ex-spouse. Another cause for variation could be the configuration of the blended family.

Complex blended families generally seemed to have more difficulties “blending” than

75 simple stepfamilies. Lastly, the expectations the couple had for the marriage and the blended family played a significant role in the outcome of the marriage. The couples that were pragmatic and had “lower expectations� seemed to fare better than the couples who had the dream of becoming a loving family together.

76

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION Introduction This study was a qualitative investigation into the experience of remarried couples in blended families. The researcher made the assumption that the experience of the remarried couple was in some way impacted by the previous marriage. All fifteen couples in this sample noted that their marriage was affected in some way by being in a blended family. This study was an important step forward toward understanding the marital dyad as its own entity within the context of a blended family. Although it was difficult to separate the couple from family dynamics, some qualities specific to the remarried couple were observed.

At the onset of dating, the previous marriage was in the background influencing their choice of partner. After having married, the presence of children in the remarried couple’s life kept the focus on raising kids rather than on building the relationship and meeting each other’s needs. Each spouse had different loyalties within the family that often created conflict between them. These loyalties constrained the couples, at times, in how open they could talk to each other, and there was difficulty integrating the new spouse into the family. The presence of the ex-spouse put stress on the marriage but also helped to unify the couple, and appreciation mitigated the multiple challenges the couple

77 faced. The biological parent appreciated the sacrifices their new spouse was willing to make and the stepparent felt admired and cared for.

Most Couples Will Be Cautious When Remarrying Remarried couples are similar to first-married couples in that both bring to their marriage relational patterns learned in their family of origin. What is different in remarriages is that one or both partners have also had a prior significant relationship that has failed. This recent failure makes them more cautious when thinking about being in a relationship again. Ten of the 15 couples interviewed discussed having “cold feet.�

Although they all talked about feeling more self-aware, mature, and clear about what kind of relationship they wanted in their next marriage, there were also feelings of vulnerability and fear that they would repeat past mistakes with their new spouse. As one participant said, she was afraid that she did not have the skill to be in a good relationship and was afraid she would fail again.

This finding is similar to what Baum & Schnit (2005) found in their study on selfesteem and divorce. Individuals who had been through a divorce had significant deficits in their self-esteem. The majority of the couples in this study expressed trepidation and doubt when they thought of forming another relationship. They were also, as Faber (2004) mentions, sensitive to any sign of conflict or difference in opinion between them, fearing that it might portend another failure. For example, one couple in the study who had married recently either deferred to the other or changed the subject if there appeared to be a difference of opinion between them. They seemed almost too considerate of each other.

78 Using the lens of self psychology, this caution may be the result of the previous failed marriage having left partners with a more negative sense of self and more fears about or negative expectations of potential partners, which had to be overcome before a new relationship could take hold. Lowered self esteem from the first failure may have left partners less confident in their ability to have a successful relationship. The previous failure may also have caused them to be more likely to experience new potential partners through the lens of the repetitive dimension of experience described by Stolorow et al.

(1995). Rather than having the selfobject dimension in the foreground and viewing a potential partner as a potential source of selfobject experience, for these cautious couples the repetitive dimension of experience may have been more in the foreground. They viewed their new partner as another person who might possibly fail to meet their selfobject needs.

These couples were not only concerned about being hurt and failing again but also did not want their children to be hurt or see another failed relationship. When looking for a new spouse, children were in the forefront of the biological parent’s mind. The most important characteristic of new potential partners appeared to be that they were good with the children and willing to co-parent. Ironically, many of the biological parents knew that they could not marry someone with children, so when they found someone who wanted to be with them and take on their children, they felt grateful. As one participant said, her child’s stepfather and stepmother were the “superheroes in the family.”

Although the literature talks about how the children impact the couple after the couple has married, there is far less attention on the affect the children have on the couple while they are dating. The majority of these couples talked about having been very

79 careful when dating someone and waiting until it felt “right” enough to take them home to their children. From the very start of the relationship, the children’s selfobject needs were prioritized over their parent’s. This is very different than first-married couples who are not responsible for children and have only their own needs to think about. As the literature has noted, the remarried couple enters the relationship without a honeymoon period in which they can solidify their commitment through creating shared meanings and working out conflicts (Dupuis, 2007; Pappernow, 1987; Goetting, 1982).

A small minority of couples was not as cautious and was in the property termed Full Steam Ahead. They described having been carried away by “love” and having thought that this love would conquer all. Consistent with the literature, the second marriage appeared to be a way for them to attempt to repair the wounds from the previous marriage (Crosbie-Burnett, 1989; Kheshgi-Genovese & Genovese 1997). The new spouse was seen as so much different from and better than the previous spouse. Being loved by the new partner also made some of them feel that the blame for the past failure lay more with the ex-spouse than with them.

These couples were more focused on the selfobject needs that were fulfilled by their partner than on those that were not. In Stolorow’s et al. (1995) terms the selfobject dimension of experience was in the foreground initially. The new relationship seemed to help restore their sense of self-cohesion and self-esteem by fulfilling the selfobject need to feel admired and special again. Not surprisingly, the couples who had been married for longer than two years found that their love did not “conquer all” and that selfobject failures did occur in their relationship. In this sample, these couples stuck it out and worked through this because they did not want to go through another divorce. Regardless

80 of whether they approached marriage cautiously or not, all couples except one reported having difficulties adjusting to blended family living. As one participant remarked, “I was cognitively prepared but emotionally taken by surprise.”

The Focus Is on the Children and not the Couple’s Needs For remarried couples, the marital relationship is intricately tied to the stepfamily, making it difficult to distinguish between the two to study them separately (Pasley et al., 1993; Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004; Dupuis, 2007). Consistent with this, during the interviews couples were observed to have difficulty sticking to the topic of their own relationship. Although couples were asked to talk specifically about their relationship, inevitably the conversation turned to the children. The interviewer would attempt to guide the couple back to their relationship, but the partners would soon end up talking about how the children affected them.

In this sample, both partners came into their relationship desiring to create a sense of family with the children that were brought into the marriage. The stepparents recognized from the beginning that the children were a priority and that they would have to make sacrifices for the children. Some commented that they liked the idea of having an “instant family.” Sweet (2001) also found that the stepparent comes into the relationship with a strong commitment to caring for the kids. Some stepparents may even see themselves as rescuing the family and being entitled to appreciation from the spouse and children (Genovese, 1997).

From the perspective of self psychology, the stepparent has a valid and legitimate need for the selfobject experiences of feeling a sense of belonging and acceptance into

81 the family and for feeling admired. They want to be recognized for taking on something that many people would choose not to do. As mentioned earlier, many of their spouses openly admitted that they could not take care of someone else’s children.

Therefore, when the children did not accept the stepparent as readily as they hoped, resentments surfaced. Part of this resentment came from the stepparent feeling a sense of inequity with decisions around parenting and disciplining. Inevitably, the biological parent had the final say in how to raise the children and the stepparent did not always agree with it. The children also listened much more to their biological parent than to the stepparent. This left the stepparent feeling unappreciated by both their spouse and stepchildren, and without power in the relationship. Several stepparents reported that in the hierarchy of needs in their family, theirs came last.

It has been noted that stepparents commonly expect that the stepchildren will instantly love the stepparent and that the stepparent will love them (Bray, 2001). The couples in this sample did not expect “instant love” but did desire a friendship with their stepchildren and wanted to feel needed and respected by them. It was painful to them when this expectation was not met. In Cartwright’s study (2003) stepparents felt they were competing for time alone and attention from their spouse and that they, at times, were put in a position where they made their spouse choose them over their children.

Several of the stepparents in this sample also talked about feelings of competition with the children. As Verner et al. (1989) found, the conflicts they had with their stepchildren created stronger feelings of loneliness and being an outsider. It also increased the discord with their spouse.

82 The stepparent’s selfobject need to belong and to feel a sense of essential alikeness was not met when the children did not accept them as part of the family. Their need to feel mirrored, or feel admired and appreciated by, their spouse was also not met.

Instead an accrual of selfobject failures left the stepparent feeling that their needs came last in the family. The children were not only prioritized but were perceived as more important to their spouse.

Spouses who came into the marriage having never been married seemed to have the most narcissistic vulnerabilities when their expectations were not met. The previously married spouse had had a honeymoon phase before parenting in their first marriage and was accustomed to parenting; the never married spouses felt that going straight into parenting was an abrupt transition. They commented that they felt like they were dating again when the children were gone and were relieved when the children’s visit was over.

When the children returned to the household, the stepparents noticed that they would feel tense and resentful as the children’s selfobject needs took precedence again. Many of them went on to have biological children of their own. These children helped to tie the stepparent more closely to their spouse and increased the stepparent’s sense of belonging in the family. Regrettably, for some couples, the stress on them increased as they found themselves raising both babies and teenagers.

The stress from focusing on the children seemed to be greater in complex stepfamilies where there were more children going in and out of the household. The need for structure, stability, and calmness was more difficult to meet. Simple stepfamilies, on the other hand, allowed the remarried couple to have periods of time together alone when they felt like they were dating again. Even if they had their own biological children, it felt

83 easier as the biological child was a constant in their household. It was observed that the couple’s relationship improved when child rearing was over.

84 Differing Loyalties Create Conflict between the Couple Several stepparents clearly stated that they loved their stepchildren because they loved their spouse. Their spouse, on the other hand, simply loved their children. These differing loyalties were problematic for the couple. The stepparent felt that they were taking care of their stepchildren as an expression of love for their spouse. If this was not adequately noticed and appreciated by their spouse the stepparent began to resent the sacrifices they made. For the stepparent, their stepchildren were seen as an imposition.

The only thing that seemed to mitigate this was how accepting the stepchild was of them and how well they got along with children of their own.

The spouse who brought children into the marriage felt caught in the middle between their children and the new spouse. Because of the divorce, they reported feelings of guilt for causing their children pain by breaking up the first marriage, grief if their time with the children was limited, and exhaustion if they became the primary parent with sole custody. After bringing their new spouse into the family, they reported feeling even more guilt because of time spent with the new spouse. They also felt bad when their new spouse felt left out and tried to make accommodations in the family.

Surprisingly, the idea of differing loyalties between the biological parent and the stepparent was not directly addressed in the literature. Other than Hobart (1988) there has been little research done on the experience of the spouse with children feeling caught in the middle. Most of the literature focused on the stepparent feeling resentful and left out of the family (Dupuis, 2007; Felker et al., 2002; Pasley, et al., 1993). Walsh (1992) did talk about the guilt that the biological parent felt and that the couple felt overwhelmed being put in a family environment where new attachments had to be made when there

85 was still mourning over the previous attachment. The inheritance of this loss, and possibly the conflicting loyalties resulting from it, caused the couple to feel a lack of cohesiveness and unity during a time when they were trying to form their own identity (Stoll, 2002).

The selfobject need for twinship and a sense of similarity was difficult to meet because each spouse had such different experiences and conflicting selfobject needs. The stepparent’s need to feel special and admired by their spouse interfered with the biological parent’s need to feel like a good parent to their children. When the biological parent attempted to focus on the selfobject needs of the new spouse, they often felt they were disregarding their children’s selfobject needs. Their own need to feel adequate and to please members of the family was not met. Because the couple had two very different subjective experiences that were laden with strong affects, it became increasingly difficult to step out of them to understand each other’s experience.

The differing loyalties led to conflicts about parenting, disciplining, and visitation. The biological parent’s guilt about the divorce and need to protect the children from the first marriage made it difficult to allow the stepparent to share in parenting and discipline. The stepparent saw their spouse as being too lenient with the children and not setting appropriate boundaries with them. Many of them shared that they felt their spouse undermined their authority or “bristled” when they (the stepparent) tried to step in with the children. They felt angry and as if they did not have as much power or influence over the children, leaving them feeling unsupported by their spouse. During visitation, the biological parent wanted to spend as much time as possible with their children and wanted to make certain that the children had fun and were happy during their visit. The

86 stepparent, on the other hand, counted the hours until the visit was over and felt relieved when the children left.

Complex stepfamilies brought more relationships into the family and therefore more potential for differing loyalties. Three out of four of the couples in complex stepfamilies talked about how they felt at times as if they were divided into two families within the household. It was one biological dyad against the other. How well the family “blended” seemed dependent on if the children behaved and got along with each other. If children did not like their stepsiblings, it put more strain on the couple’s relationship. It was difficult to stay unified as parents and not take sides with their children.

Conflicts around differing loyalties did not end when the children left the home.

The couples interviewed who were married for over 20 years talked about the continued problems with adult children. Children felt they still had to share their parent with the stepparent, and during the holidays this became more pronounced. They saw their biological parent choosing their stepparent or the stepparent’s children over them when deciding which side of the family to spend the holidays with. When adult children had babies, the stepparent would again feel left out and the focus became on who would help care for the grandchildren.

Integrating the New Spouse into the Family Is Difficult As much as the new spouse wants to fit into the family, the past history the biological dyad has together makes this challenging. Many stepparents felt as if they did not belong in the family. The stepchildren would often talk about past times when their parents were together, and that felt excluding. Some stepparents felt blamed by their

87 stepchildren for being an interloper and breaking up their parent’s marriage even when this wasn’t true. When the stepparent attended birthday parties or family events, they commented on how they felt awkward and out of place because the ex-spouse would be there or be mentioned by the extended family. Several stepparents remarked that they were counting off the years until they were with their spouse as long as the ex-spouse had been. They saw this as a benchmark.

The finding that the past relationship affects the new spouse’s integration into the family is supported by the literature. Schneller & Arditti (2004) also observe that the prior relationship may continue to have meaning and influence in the relationship. Dupuis (2007) and Sweet (2001) comment on how comparisons are made between the new and prior spouse and that the new spouse measures themselves against the ex-spouse in role, status, and performance. Children did bring up the past and fantasize about the old family structure and openly hope for reconciliation, making the new spouse feel like an interloper (Walsh, 1992). They acted out the ex-spouse’s pain and resentment against the stepparent (Pappernow, 1987; Pasley et al., 1993).

Another issue that makes it difficult to integrate the new spouse into the family is that of role confusion. The new spouse was not always sure of what role to play in the family and would often look to their spouse for direction. Unfortunately, it was not clear to their spouse how to incorporate the stepparent into the family structure and confusion and differing expectations between them created conflict. The spouse with children tried various ways of trying to accommodate so that they did not feel like an outsider. But this was not easy, as the biological parent was often overwhelmed and immersed in taking care of their children as well as their new spouse. When their spouse did attempt to parent

88 or help out with childcare, the biological parent felt appreciative yet apprehensive about their spouse feeling burdened and resentful, and protective of their children.

In a recent study by Kim (2010), role ambiguity was found to be a significant factor in explaining the level of marital satisfaction for remarried couples. Fine & Kurdek (1994) also noticed a consistency in cognition was positively related to relationship quality in the stepfamily. In their sample there was a struggle over trying to understand what role to play and this lead to resentments between the couple. The same appears to hold true in this study. The couples that seemed clearer as to the stepparent’s role in the family seemed to be more united about appropriate boundaries in the family.

These factors also make it difficult for the stepparent’s selfobject needs for likeness and belonging to be met. The need to feel secure in their place in the family was not met. It may be equally frustrating for the biological parent who wants the new spouse to be part of the family but feels inadequate in being able to make this happen. The need for stability was not easy to attain for a remarried couple in a blended family. There are no norms to follow as there are for first-married couples, and roles and boundaries can be difficult to establish.

In this sample role confusion seemed equally present in both simple and complex stepfamilies. The degree of confusion seemed to be associated with how close the roles in the family met each spouse’s expectation. Having children together did not seem to help alleviate role confusion, but the stepparent felt more of a claim on their spouse.

89 The Ex-Spouse Burdens and Strengthens the Remarried Couple’s Relationship The literature has found that the continued influence of the ex-spouse can be a greater threat to the remarried couple than the blending of the family with the children (McCarthy & Ginsbert, 2007. The presence of the children in the remarried couple’s household brings in the ex-spouse’s presence. Some couples have mentioned that they can hear the voice of the ex-spouse in what the children say. At least half of this sample had an experience where the children directed angry and inaccurate accusations at them that came directly from past issues with the ex-spouse. Conflicting loyalties would come into this as the biological parent would often let things go to protect their children and allow for this misunderstanding to perpetuate. The stepparent would feel constrained and like they needed to speak out and set things right. The biological parent was equally constrained as they needed to protect the children’s relationship with the ex-spouse and not start a conflict that might cause their children to stop visitation and move in with the ex-spouse more permanently.

For many of the couple’s interviewed, the presence of the ex-spouse interrupted the equanimity of the remarried couple’s family life. At times, it seemed as if as if the exspouse purposely tried to sabotage the remarried couple’s adjustment with being a blended family. The ex-spouse would come late to pick up the children or be delayed in dropping them off so that it would disrupt whatever plans the couple had made or the household’s routine. The ex-spouse also had rules at their house that were different than at the remarried couple’s, and this created confusion in their household when disciplining the children. Role confusion could also be exacerbated by the ex-spouse. The ex-spouse sometimes did not like the new spouse’s influence over their children and would find

90 fault with it. They would protest to the biological parent loudly enough that the biological parent felt caught in the middle again and had to reconfigure their new spouse’s role in the family.

There is a great deal of literature on how the ex-spouse may place a burden on the remarried couple’s relationship. Faber (2004) talks about how there is a chronic anxiety elicited by the ex-spouse that puts a strain on the relationship. This could be seen with many of the couples in this sample. Several of them mentioned having to brace themselves for what was going to come next from the ex-spouse. It had also been observed in the literature that sometimes there is still an emotional attachment to the exspouse that can interfere with the development of the new couple’s relationship (AdlerBaeder & Higginbotham, 2004). This did not seem to be the case in this sample. There were moments though where the new spouse was put in the middle of the old conflicts with the previous spouse rather than their spouse continuing to deal with their ex-spouse as the literature had suggested (Stokes & Wampler, 2002).

Viewed through the lens of self psychology, the presence of the ex-spouse contributes to various selfobject failures. One is the need for stability in the relationship.

The ex-spouse tends to disrupt the couple’s efforts to balance the needs of the family and their relationship. These disruptions, which feel out of their control, leave them feeling disempowered. Because of the need to protect the children’s relationship with the exspouse, both spouses restrained themselves from speaking openly within the family and to each other. The selfobject need to feel understood and connected was thus not adequately met when they felt they could not speak openly. Lastly, “chronic anxiety” also

91 can lead to emotional reactivity between the two spouses (Faber, 2004). Therefore, the need to idealize their partner and feel soothed by him or her was difficult to experience.

Despite the number of ways the ex-spouse burdens the remarried couple’s relationship, there are positive aspects to having the ex-spouse’s presence in their life.

The anger at the ex-spouse that would come up over situations that could not be controlled often brought the couple together as a team. The majority of these couples expressed a feeling of uniting against a common enemy. Having the ex-spouse as a bad object for both of them helped them feel more confident about themselves and their relationship. Frequently, these couples talked about the ex-spouse with feelings of superiority. The divorced spouse was seen as the victim and his or her qualities were heightened and held up by the new spouse as evidence that they were not at fault for the demise of their previous marriage. The new spouse was also compared favorably to the ex-spouse.

It is striking that there is no mention of this in the literature since this seems to be an important aspect of the dynamic between remarried couples. This is also something positive that can be built upon. Dupuis (2007) does mention that comparisons are made between the spouses but that this is detrimental to the new spouse and seen as a measuring stick. Interestingly, Masheter (1997) notices that partners that were rated higher in hostility with low preoccupation fared better than those that rated high in friendship with high preoccupation. Perhaps the hostility helps the couple to separate, move on, and create their own identity.

The shared animosity towards the ex-spouse helped the couple to meet their mutual selfobject needs for twinship. Here the couple could agree and feel a sense of

92 likeness. This mutual dislike for the ex-spouse was private and the children were excluded. It also helped the divorced spouse gratify the selfobject need to be admired and feel special again. The narcissistic injuries from the past were eased when their new spouse saw them as a victim of the past relationship and as someone who has grown and become better than the ex-spouse. The new spouse benefitted as well by the favorable comparisons. Their needs for security and safety in the relationship were strengthened the more the ex-spouse was vilified.

The degree to which the ex-spouse was seen as a mutual enemy did not seem to differ between complex and simple stepfamilies as it appeared to be more dependent on the relationship they had with the ex-spouse opposed to the family’s configuration. There was a difference between couples who had been married a short period of time and those that had been married longer and no longer lived with the children. Couples who had a contentious relationship towards the ex-spouse reported that the relationship improved after the children were launched. One couple even made time each year to go out to dinner with the ex-spouse and their new spouse. Another couple finally put aside differences with the ex-spouse when the first stepchild got married. Most of these couples had fewer interactions with the ex-spouse because there were fewer decisions with parenting to make together and the two households felt more separate.

Remarried Couples Have a Heightened Sense of Appreciation for Each Other All 15 couples talked about how much they appreciated having a second chance with their new spouse. In this sample most of the couples felt they were married to someone who was a better fit for them. The new relationship helped them feel as if they

93 could have a good relationship and they had learned from the mistakes in the past marriage. With these couples there was a sense of stubbornness and an unwillingness to quit on the relationship when things got difficult. They reminded themselves how much better their life was overall with their new spouse compared to the ex-spouse. They knew how painful it was to divorce and they wanted to make this relationship work.

This differs from what is in the literature. For example, the Stepfamily Foundation, Inc. (2003) found that remarried couples are more likely to divorce as they had already been through a divorce. Appreciation is not mentioned in the literature.

Previous research has commented on how remarried couples without children have a better chance for success than first-married couples, but there is no explanation as to why this is (Sandlin et al., 2001). It appears that the amount of appreciation could be a significant predictor to marital satisfaction.

Feeling appreciative for having a second chance seemed to help bolster the couple’s self-esteem. The divorced spouse had an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and create a healthy, successful relationship. This possibility for healing may lead to a more cohesive sense of self again. When the couple focuses on the appreciation they have for each other, the storms of integrating the family seem to be somewhat mitigated.

Most appreciation came from the spouse that had been divorced with children and was directed toward the new spouse who took on the role of stepparent. As noted earlier, the spouse with children from a previous marriage saw their new spouse as a “bigger� and better person than them for being willing to marry them and their children. They also expressed gratitude to the stepparent for providing a role model for their children that

94 added positive things to their children’s development. Many times their spouse would go beyond what they expected of them, when taking care of the children, and this reinforced the bond between them. They especially enjoyed seeing their children turn to their new spouse and engage with them as if they would their parent.

Looking at appreciation in this was not found within the literature. Rather, the focus was on the guilt that the divorced spouse felt towards their new spouse because of the burden their children posed.

Being appreciated was very important to the stepparents in this sample, as it met their selfobject needs to feel recognized and valued. The “sacrifices” they made did not go unnoticed. The selfobject needs to feel admired and special were also met as their spouse saw the stepparent as a much “bigger” person. The stepparent took on a difficult situation in a way that their spouse could not. Feeling appreciated also made it easier for the stepparent to meet their need to belong in the family. It safeguarded them somewhat from feeling left out and like an outsider.

In complex stepfamilies appreciation was a two way street for couples as they both brought children and an ex-spouse into the marriage. In simple stepfamilies this was not the case, but the appreciation directed toward the new spouse seemed to protect the relationship. Appreciation also seemed to increase for each other the longer the couple had been married. They would look back on the good and bad times they had been through together and feel a sense of accomplishment.

95 Characteristics of Blended Families That Run Smoothly The majority of the remarried couples interviewed talked mainly about the difficulties that were inherent to being in a blended family. There was one couple that stood out from the rest because their marriage had been relatively smooth sailing. Some but not all of the aspects that helped them were present with other couples. It seemed that having all of these characteristics contributed to fewer difficulties for the couple.

The first noteworthy difference in this particular couple was that the stepchild welcomed the stepparent into the family, was easygoing, and required minimal disciplining. He also got on very well with all of his new half-siblings when they were born and was seen as a positive role model for them. There was little to no conflict over parenting decisions as so little was required of this couple in raising this child.

The second thing that was different was that the divorced spouse continued to have an amiable relationship with the ex-spouse. The ex-spouse happily remarried and openly approved of her ex-husband’s new spouse. She liked her and knew of her already through one of her close friends. There was little discomfort or tension during interactions together.

The third quality they had was a clear understanding of what their roles in the family were. They stated that they wouldn’t allow their stepchild to play them against the other, and it was understood that the biological parent was the one who had the most say in raising their kids. The stepparent was to be a supportive sidekick. The stepparent also did not have the expectation that she would love her stepchildren as much as her spouse did or that the children would love her.

96 The last important characteristic of this couple was how flexible they were. Being flexible did not mean having loose boundaries but being open-minded and seeing multiple options. This couple did not have rigid ideas of who they were supposed to be in the family and how they were supposed to be treated. They also were open to changing the visitation schedule as the stepchild got older and taking him whenever the ex-spouse needed them too.

From a self psychological perspective, these four characteristics assisted them in meeting many selfobject needs that have been previously mentioned. The stepchild’s welcoming presence and ease with the stepparent helped to meet the stepparent’s need to belong and feel appreciated. The biological parent’s desire to feel like a family again was gratified by his child’s agreeable nature. The ex-spouse also worked with them and was welcoming to the stepparent. She had emotionally moved on and this couple never felt the chronic anxiety other couple’s had reported. Having clear roles yet being flexible and feeling supported by the ex-spouse helped this couple to meet the need to have their own stable, secure, identity.

Implications for Treatment The goal of this study has been to help understand the experience of remarried couples in blended families more in depth so that this information could be used by clinical social workers and others who treat remarried couples and to advance research in this area. This research helps to call attention to the idea that remarried couples may have issues specific to them. As a result, it seems essential that they are not treated as a firstmarried couple might be. One of the first differences that a remarried couple may bring in

97 is that both the divorced spouse and new spouse may have narcissistic vulnerabilities specific to being in a remarriage. One if not both of the spouses have been in a previous relationship that failed and created significant deficits in their sense of self. Given this, the therapist might need to openly talk with the couple about any fears they have of failure or old wounds that may resurface. It may be critical to assess for the degree of damage to their sense of self and help the couple join together in repairing this by meeting each other’s needs for mirroring.

The spouse that has been divorced and has brought children into the marriage often feels caught in the middle between trying to meet their spouse’s needs and those of their children. Unlike a couple who has children together, a remarried couple’s differing loyalties causes the spouse with children to feel that being loyal to the children somehow takes away from the loyalty they feel to their new spouse. It feels impossible to meet everyone’s needs and they are left feeling frustrated and inadequate. Understanding this, the therapist may be able to assist the couple by pointing out how differing loyalties could have created this conundrum. By using an empathic stance the therapist can communicate to the biological parent how difficult this position is for them and assist the stepparent in becoming empathic to their spouse’s position. They could draw on the maturity the divorced spouse has gained from the previous marriage and highlight how it has strengthened the new marriage. The divorced spouse may need to feel that it is OK for them to focus on certain members of the family without fear of reprisal from the spouse or children.

To help facilitate this, the therapist may have to also address the needs of the stepparent and stay empathically attuned to these needs. In this sample many of the

98 stepparents expressed that they felt their needs came last in the family and they did not belong. The therapist might find that highlighting the appreciation that the divorced spouse feels for all the sacrifices the stepparent makes helps the stepparent feel recognized and part of the family. Because of the stepparent’s need for belonging, the couple could use therapy to explore ways to help the stepparent feel safe and secure in the marriage. Even comparing the new spouse favorably to the ex-spouse seems to be helpful, although it does keep the ex-spouse’s presence in the relationship.

If the relationship with the ex-spouse is still difficult and emotionally involved, the therapist may need to talk to the couple about setting appropriate boundaries with the ex-spouse that will protect their relationship and their family life. Talking about protecting the relationship from the ex-spouse can help the couple feel more unified. At the same time, perceiving the ex-spouse as their enemy is not always going to be in the couple’s best interest as the ex-spouse will be part of the couple’s life forever and creating a workable relationship may affect their relationship positively in the end. The new spouse might need to be careful not to get directly involved in the old arguments and resentments between their spouse and the ex-spouse. Prior research provides evidence that a supportive role seems to be best during these conflicts (Dupuis, 2007).

Issues with parenting seem to come up inevitably between remarried couples. It is beneficial for the therapist to understand that unlike couples who have children together, there is a power difference between the partners in remarried couples when it comes to parenting. The biological parent will have the final say with decisions around parenting and the children will turn to their parent rather than the stepparent for guidance. There also may be a threat to the biological parent that if they are not lenient with disciplining,

99 the children may leave to live with the other parent. This is another reason why the stepparent may not feel as though they belong in the family: they feel the inequity in their ability to influence and raise the children. Based on this, the therapist might encourage the stepparent to allow the biological parent to lead with parenting but also encourage the biological parent to talk over some of these decisions with the stepparent if they might affect the marriage. The biological parent could also begin to yield some authority to the stepparent and support them when they are disciplining the children. The couple will benefit by being seen as a unified team by the children. This discourages the children from attempting to play off one against the other, as is common in any family. The difference is that for remarried couples this “playing off� can become charged with meaning and leave the new spouse feeling excluded.

Another topic relevant to treating remarried couples is helping them to understand what they can and cannot control. The practice of letting go seems to be crucial in helping remarried couples be successful in blended families. The first thing to assess may be the expectations the couple has and how realistic they are. For example, if the stepparent comes in expecting that the children will embrace them within a certain period of time, the therapist might point out they cannot control when that will be and that when the children do show them love, it is really a gift and not an obligation. The couple may also have to let go of what they cannot control regarding the ex-spouse. They may wish for the ex-spouse to act in certain ways, but they need to learn to work with what they have rather than continue to rail against it.

Lastly, family life and raising children can be hectic, but this seems to be especially so for stepfamilies where children are going in and out of the household. The

100 couple also is continuing trying to balance multiple relationships and can feel depleted by it all. The therapist’s job may be to help the couple find time to relax and turn toward each other so that they can meet each other’s needs. If they don’t do this, they may not be able to meet the needs of others in the household.

Limitations of the Study The sample in this study was a small, nonrandom, and purposive. It consisted of fifteen couples, thirteen of whom were Caucasian and from relatively high socioeconomic brackets. Two of them were African American and from a middle to high socioeconomic bracket. Therefore, there was limited diversity in the sample. The couples in the study also were willing participants. Their marriages were in a relatively good enough place that they felt comfortable participating in the study. Many of them knew of couples that were having a harder time. One knew another couple that was in marital counseling. The researcher pursued the couple in counseling but was never granted an interview. The couple was also interviewed together and there was a possibility that they censored some of what they were saying because of the presence of their spouse.

This sample included simple and complex stepfamilies. There was no differentiation made between the two. Couples in the sample ranged from one that had been married only one year to one that after 38 years of marriage was in a very different place of the life cycle. In some couples both of the spouses had been divorced but only one brought in children. For other couples one person had never been married before and this was considered their first marriage. Many of these couples decided to have children of their own together, while some did not. So although the sample was defined to include

101 couples in which at least one spouse had been previously married and had custodial and financial obligations to children, there was tremendous variation within this definition.

This study had personal meaning for the researcher, who is part of a blended family. The researcher was a stepparent in a simple stepfamily and so may have viewed things from certain perspectives. When coding the data, the researcher may have had a bias toward seeing particular themes that were familiar to her. Despite the precautions put into place to help limit these potential biases, there is always the potential for some bias in research.

Finally, there are multiple theoretical lenses through which the findings of this study could be analyzed. The researcher chose to use self psychology. Thus, the researcher focused on examining unmet selfobject needs between the couple and narcissistic vulnerabilities specific to remarriage and blended family life. Using only one theory to analyze the data runs the risk of limiting the depth of analysis.

Two other theories that could have been helpful in analyzing the results are structural theory and attachment theory. Structural theory’s concepts of subsystems, boundaries, hierarchy, coalitions, and alliances could have been useful in helping to breakdown and organize the complexity of the stepfamily. The remarried couple’s subsystem could have been analyzed in relation to the biological subsystem and boundaries, coalitions, and alliances identified and discussed.

Attachment theory, in particular Susan Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy for couples, addresses each partner’s sense of security in the relationship. The focus would be on threats to the bond that the couple has and what might strengthen this bond.

102 The theory would also address the type of attachment they may have upon entering the second marriage.

Future Research Considering the limitations, there are many areas that can be pursued for future research. Instead of having a sample that is broad and inclusive of so many variations, it can be broken down to look at more specific traits and demographics in remarried couples. These more specific traits could be used in formulating a hypothesis for a quantitative study. For example, a researcher could look at the differences between simple and complex stepfamilies: a possible hypothesis might be that if a remarried couple is part of a complex stepfamily, there will be more conflict because there are more relationships to manage then that of a simple stepfamily. It would also be interesting to compare couples married from one to 10 years to those married longer and measure how they perform on a marital satisfaction scale. Another variable to examine is how the couples who decide to have their own children compare to those that do not. The researcher might make a conjecture that the couples who have children together have a greater sense of belonging and security together than those that do not. The role that culture plays in remarriage among specific ethnicities and races could be compared as well.

Socioeconomic status may potentially play a great role in how remarried couples function in blended families. In this sample there were a few couples who were not in a mid to high socioeconomic bracket. They differed noticeably from the rest of the sample.

The stepparent focused not so much on whether the children liked them as on what would

103 work best financially to help them survive. These couples mentioned child support more frequently, and roles in the family seemed more traditional.

Final Thoughts This study provided insights into the experience of the remarried couple, as their own entity, within the context of the blended family. The majority of past studies have been on the dynamics of the stepfamily and not the couple themselves. The details and richness of the data will help to assist clinicians treating couples in blended families by offering them more insight into what the “lived experience� of the couple might be. As mentioned above, there are many more avenues to explore in regards to remarried couples in blended families, but this study was an important first step on a long road to furthering our knowledge.

104

APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT

105 Individual Consent for Participation in Research INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK

I,______________________________________, acting for myself, agree to take part in the research entitled: The prior marriage’s impact on the experience of remarried couples in blended families.

This work will be carried out by Michele Martin, LMFT under the supervision of Denise Duval, her dissertation chair.

This work will be conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; 200 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 407; Chicago, IL 60601; (312) 726-8480).

Purpose The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of how the continued obligations and relationships from the prior marriage influence how remarried couples experience their new marriage. Information will be collected by talking with remarried couples who currently have or have had in the past custodial and financial obligations to children from a prior marriage. The hope is that this information will help clinical social workers have a better understanding of issues that are common to remarried couples living in blended families. The goal is that this information will positively affect treatment outcomes in marital therapy with remarried couples.

PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY AND THE DURATION If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to take part in an interview that will last approximately 90 minutes. The interview will be tape recorded so that the conversation can be written down later and the researcher can begin to look for similar themes about what you said about your experiences as a remarried couple and what other couples have said. There may be a shorter follow up interview a few months later to help clarify some of the emerging themes.

Benefits There may be some direct benefits to participating in this study. The interview will give you and your spouse a chance to talk about your marriage openly and become aware of its challenges and strengths. It may be an affirming experience as you reflect on how you have worked through difficult times together. As previously stated, it is the hope that the information gained in this study will benefit clinical social workers who work with remarried couples in a treatment setting.

Costs There is no cost for participation in this study.

106

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects There may be the potential risk of having a negative emotional response to some of the questions. The researcher will not always know what may be a sensitive topic for you and your spouse and inadvertently bring up an area of unresolved conflict. You may feel uncomfortable at times when talking about the complexity involved in being in a blended family.

In order to reduce this potential risk, the researcher will check in with you regarding your reactions to questions. If there is obvious discomfort answering a question, you can choose to skip that question and move on to a different topic. You can also choose to terminate participation in the study at any time during the interview.

Privacy and Confidentiality The researcher will make every effort to protect your privacy and confidentiality. In order to ensure privacy, interviews will take place either at the researcher’s office or at your home in a room that is quiet and undisturbed by other family members.

Confidentiality will be guarded by keeping all research materials in a locked file cabinet that only the researcher can access. You and your spouse will be identified by a number on the audio tape and the transcription. After the interview, recordings will be transcribed as soon as possible and then erased. At the completion of the study, data will be disposed of by deleting any electronic files pertaining to the study. The transcription/written interview will be kept for five years after the dissertation is approved in the locked file cabinet and then destroyed.

Subject Assurances By signing this consent form, I agree to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness.

I may cancel my consent and refuse to continue in this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if I refuse to take part, or if I begin the study and then withdraw.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Michele Martin, LMFT or Denise Duval PhD, LCSW, at these phone numbers during the day or evening.

Michele Martin: 847-624-2776 Denise Duval: 773-562-8480 If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Daniel Rosenfeld, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; 200 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 407; Chicago, IL 60601; (312) 726-8480.

107

Signatures I have read this consent form and I agree to take part in this study as it is explained in this consent form. _________________________________ Signature of Participant

_____________ Date

I certify that I have explained the research to _________________________________ and believe that they understand and that they have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward. ________________________________ Signature of Researcher

______________ Date

108

APPENDIX B LIST OF COUPLES PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY AND CHARACTERISTICS

109 List of Couples Participating In the Study and Characteristics

Couple #1 Married 1½ years. Simple stepfamily. Wife brought in two latency-age children from a previous marriage.

Couple #2 Married 17 years. Simple stepfamily. Husband brought in five children ranging from an infant to a young teen from four previous relationships.

Couple #3 Married 33 years. Simple stepfamily. Wife brought in two-latency age children from a previous marriage.

Couple #4 Married 2½ years. Simple stepfamily. Both spouses had divorced but husband had brought in two latency-age children from a previous marriage. They have two children together.

Couple #5 Married 16 years. Complex stepfamily. Both spouses had divorced; the wife brought in one 2-year-old child, and the husband had two young adults in late teens and early twenties.

Couple #6 Married 6 years. Simple stepfamily. Wife brought in two latency-age children from a previous marriage and they now have two children together.

Couple #7 Married 7½ years. Complex stepfamily. Each spouse brought in three children from their previous marriages, from latency age to teenage Couple #8 Married 2½ years. Simple stepfamily. Both spouses had divorced, and the husband brought in two latency-age children from the previous marriage. They now have one child together.

110

Couple #9 Married 20 years. Simple stepfamily. Husband brought in an infant into the marriage, and his previous spouse had died. They have two children together.

Couple #10 Married 6½ years. Simple stepfamily. Husband brought in two children. One was latency-age and the other a young teen.

Couple #11 Married 1 year. Simple stepfamily. Wife brought in three latency age children from previous marriage, and they have one child together.

Couple #12 Married 13 years. Complex stepfamily. Husband brought in two children from a previous marriage, latency age and teen. Wife brought in two latency age children and one teen.

Couple #13 Married 13 years. Complex stepfamily. Husband brought in two children who were latency age, and his wife brought in one child who was latency age.

Couple #14 Married 20 years. Simple stepfamily. Husband brought in one pre–latency-age child from a previous marriage and they have two children together.

Couple #15 Married 38 years. Complex stepfamily. Husband brought in three children, early teen to latency age. Woman brought in two pre–latency-age children.

111

REFERENCES

Adler-Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage and stepfamily formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53(5), 448-458.

Atwood, G., & Stolorow, R. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic phenomenology. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Baum, N., & Schnit, D. (2005). Self-differentiation & narcissism in divorced parents’ co-parental relationships and functioning. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 42(3/4), 33-61.

Beaudry, M., Boisvert, J., Simard, M., Parent, C., Blais, M. (2004). Communication: A key component to meeting the challenges of stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 42(1/2), 85-104.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. (1992). Starting over: Why remarriages are more unstable.

Journal of Family Issues, 13,179-195.

Boss, P. (1987). Family stress. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and family (pp.695-723). New York: Plenum.

Bray, J. H. (2001). Therapy with stepfamilies: A developmental systems approach.

In S. H. McDaniel, D. Lusterman, & C. L. Philphot (Eds.), Casebook for integrating family therapy: An ecosystemic approach (pp. 127-140).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bray J. H., & Kelly, J. (1988). StepFamilies: Love, marriage, and parenting in the first decade. New York: Broadway Books.

Buunk, B. P., & Mutsaers W. (1999). Equity perceptions and marital satisfaction in Former and current marriage: A study among the remarried. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 16, 122.

Cartwright, C. (2003). Therapists’ perceptions of bioparent-child relationships in stepfamilies: What hurts? What helps? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 38(3/4), 147-167.

Chadwick B. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1999). Statistical handbook on the American family (2nd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

112

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.

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

Coleman, M., Ganong, L. & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1288-1307.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1989). Application of family stress theory to remarriage: A model for assessing and helping stepfamilies. Family Relations, 38(3), 323-331.

Delongis, A., & Preece, M. (2002). Emotional and relational consequences of coping in stepfamilies. Marriage and Family Review, 34 (1), 115-138.

Dupuis, S. B. (2007). Examining remarriage: A look at issues affecting remarried couples and the implications toward therapeutic techniques. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 48(1/2), 91-104.

Elliott, R. (1997). Therapy with remarried couples: A multitheoretical perspective.

Australian & New Zealand Family Therapy Journal, 18(4), 181-193.

Faber, A. J. (2004). Examining remarried couples through a Bowenian family systems lens. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 40(3/4), 121-134.

Felker, J. A., Fromme, D. K., Arnaut, G. L. & Stoll, B. M. (2002). A qualitative analysis of stepfamilies: The stepparent. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 38(1/2), 125-143.

Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1994). A multidimensional cognitive-development model of stepfamily adjustment. In K. Pasley & Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Stepparenting: Issues in theory, research, and practice (pp. 15-32). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Fishman, B. (1983). The economic behavior of stepfamilies. Family Relations, 32(3), 359-366.

Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1984). The effects of remarriage on children: A review of the empirical literature. Family Relations, 33, 389-406.

Gardner, J. (1999). Using self psychology in brief psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 6(3&4), 1-21.

Glaser, B. J., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

113

Glick, P. (1989). Remarried families, stepfamilies, and stepchildren: A brief demographic profile. Family Relations, 38, 24-27.

Goetting, A. (1982). The six stations of remarriage: Developmental tasks of remarriage after divorce. Family Relations, 31(2), 213-222.

Hampson, R. B., Prince, C. C., & Beavers, R. W. (1999). Marital therapy: Qualities of couples who fare better or worse in treatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(4), 411-424.

Hobart, C. (1988). The family system in remarriage: An exploratory study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50 (3), 649-661.

Kheshgi-Genovese, Z., & Genovese, T. (1997). Developing the spousal relationship within stepfamilies. Families in Society, 78(3), 255-265.

Kim, H. (2010). Exploratory study on the factors affecting marital satisfaction among remarried Korean couples. Families in Society, 91(2): 193-200.

Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2001). Marrying a man with “baggage�: Implications for second wives. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 35(3/4), 67-80.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kohut H., & Wolf, E. (1978). Disorders of the self and their treatment. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59, 413-425.

Leone, C. (2008). Couple therapy from the perspective of self psychology and intersubjective theory. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 25(1), 79-98.

Livingston M. (1998). Conflict and aggression in couple therapy. Family Process, 37, 311-321.

Lown, J. M., & Dolan, E. M. (1988). Financial challenges in remarriage. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 73-89.

Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Arditti, J. A. (1999). The ties that bind: Attachment between former spouses. Family Relations, 48(3), 243-249.

Masheter, C. (1997). Healthy and unhealthy friendship and hostility between ex-spouses Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 59(2), 463-476.

McCarthy, B. W., & Ginsberg, R. L. (2007). Second marriages: Challenges and risks.

The Family Journal, 15, 120-125.

114 McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counseling and psychotherapy. London: Sage.

Pappernow, P. (1987). Thickening the “middle ground�: Dilemmas and vulnerabilities of remarried couples. Psychotherapy. 24(3S) Pasley, K. (1987). Family boundary ambiguity: Perceptions of adult stepfamily members.

In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 206-224). New York: Guilford.

Pasley, K., Dollahite, D. C. & Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Clinical applications of research findings on the spouse and stepparent roles in remarriage. Family Relations, 42(3), 315-322.

Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., Waldren, T. & Sorell, G. T. (1988). Patterns of functioning in families of remarried and first-married couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(3): 699-708.

Ringstrom, P. A. (1994). An intersubjective approach to conjoint therapy. In Goldberg, A. (Ed.), Progress in self psychology (vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (Eds.). (2005). Research methods for social work (5th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc. Sandlin Allen, E., Baucom, D. H., Burnett, C. K., Epstein, N. & Rankin-Esquer, L. A. (2001). Decision-making power, autonomy, and communication in remarried spouses compared with first-married spouses. Family Relations, 50, 326-334.

Schneller, D. P., & Arditti, J. A. (2004). After the breakup. Interpreting divorce and rethinking intimacy. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 42(1/2), 1-37.

Stepfamily Foundation, Inc. (2003). Retrieved October 20, 2003 from http://www.stepfamily.org.

Stewart, S. D. (2005). Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 26(7): 1002-1029.

Stolorow, R. D., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood, G. E. (1995). Psychoanalytic treatment: An intersubjective approach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Stokes, S. B., & Wampler, R. S. (2002). Remarried clients seeking marital therapy as compared to those seeking family therapy: Differences in levels of psychological and marital distress. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 38(1/2), 91-108.

Strauss A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

115

Sweet, M. (2001). Formations and features of a stepparent identity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.icsw.edu/resources/library/dissertations.

Verner, E., Coleman, M., Ganong, L. H., & Cooper, H. (1989). Marital satisfaction in remarriage: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(3), 713725.

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

Visher E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1994). The core ingredients in the treatment of stepfamilies.

The Family Journal, 2, 208.

Walsh, W. M. (1992). Twenty major issues in remarriage families. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(6), 709.

White, L.K. & Booth, A. (1985). The quality and stability of remarriages: The role of stepchildren. American Sociological Review, 50, 689-698.