Week 1: Reflection Paper

Goldenberg_2017_Chapter_2_Edition_9th.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Week 1: Reflection Paper

Title of book: Family Therapy: An Overview (9th Edition) Author of book: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg Chapter Title: Chapter 2 Family Development: Continuity and Change Author of Chapter: Irene Goldenberg, Mark Stanton, Herbert Goldenberg Year: 2017 Publisher: Cengage Learning Place of Publishing: United States of America The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use that user may be liable for copyright infringement.

30 CHAPTER 2

Developing a Life Cycle Perspective Advocates contend that the family life cycle perspective offers a positive view of the family's

capacity to retain its stability and continuity at the same time that it evolves and changes its

structure as new relational processes occur. It is not that a competent family passes through

a particular stage stress free or without resisting change but rather that it has the resilience

to use its strengths, resources, and effective interpersonal processes to master the necessary

transitions. T he more resilient the family, the more capably it reorganizes to deal with disrup

tions and bounces back after temporarily being thrown off course because of developmental

transitions (Walsh, 2012a). Interpersonal conflicts that develop within a family may signal the

family's inability to negotiate a particular life cycle passage or transition point; here the family

is thought to have become "stuck" between stages of the life cycle and to be in need of reorga

nizing in order to better accommodate to the changing needs of its members.

Identifying Developmental Tasks

Different family life cycle stages call for the mastery of specific developmental tasks by its

members. Developmental tasks refer to those activities or experiences that need to be mas

tered at various stages in the family life cycle to enable the family to move to the next develop

mental stage. Individual developmental tasks fold into family developmental tasks. Some tasks

are universal (e.g., infant attachment to caregivers), while some may be more culture bound

(e.g., the task of developing an individual identity is less commonly found in collectivistic

cultures that emphasize community commitment over individual advancement); see Masten

and Tellegen (2012). Contemporary middle-class American society expects adolescents to be

have differently from younger children or from adults; young adults, economic circumstances

permitting, are encouraged to develop independence and autonomy. However, developing

competencies in a dangerous inner-city environment may call for survival skills that the larger

society may consider inappropriate. Different times, such as periods of war, often require dif

ferent survival skills.

Developmental tasks define role expectations throughout the life cycle. Newly married

couples must develop a process for gaining greater closeness and interdependence; the nature

of their involvement with one another inevitably changes once they have a child. Parents

must remain involved with young children in a way that would be smothering for adolescents

(Minuchin, Lee, & Simon, 2006). Family life cycle advocates argue that the family that has

difficulty navigating a particular phase may be temporarily vulnerable-but not necessarily

dysfunctional-and may need help before feeling empowered to manage the turning point.

Conceptualizing the Life Cycle: Some Preliminary Cautions

It is important to note a few words of caution before introducing the life cycle concepts: Any

generalizations in the family life cycle model should be seen within the context of a particular

class, culture, and historical period (early 21st-century America) and thus are open to peri

odic revision as changes occur in the larger society. In addition, individual family differences

in ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, degree of acculturation,

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

spirituality, and experiences with family violence may modify the nature of the stages and the

developmental tasks that must be accomplished. Couples who do not have children experi

ence a very different family life cycle. Box 2.1 highlights some diversity factors that should be

considered in understanding variations in the family life cycle.

One further caution: It is useful to remember that transitions from one stage to the next

are rarely accomplished as neatly in real life as stage theory would suggest. Mastering a signif

icant life cycle transition calls for changes in the family system, not merely rearrangements of

accommodations between members (which typically go on unnoticed throughout family life).

Most transitions occur over several years, and life stages often merge into one another, so that

a family may be trying to cope with the same issues and challenges over several stages. The key

point to remember here, as Gerson (1995) observes, is that

each transition requires a family to change, to reset priorities, and to organize to meet the challenges of the new life cycle stage. Therapists can learn much about a family and how it is coping and functioning by assessing how that family meets the challenges of each life cycle transition. (p. 91)

Family Diversity May Modify Life Cycle Stages Despite the view held by most family therapists that the life course of families evolves through a predictable sequence of stages that are fairly uni versal, a variety of individual family differences may change the exact nature of a family life cycle stage for that family, including:

• Ethnicity • Culture • Socioeconomic status • Sexual identity • Spirituality • Family violence • Physical or mental illness " Substance abuse

In addition, the family's migration history or degree of acculturation, gender roles, intergenerational hierarchies, child-rearing attitudes and patterns, and the role of the elderly may be important in the way the family navigates a life cycle stage, and these issues are relevant in therapeutic work to help families accomplish the tasks of those stages. Attention should be given to the family's religious

and spiritual aspects so therapists can appreciate how the family's faith beliefs and practices affect their interactions (Walsh, 2010).

A heightened awareness of these differences is particularly important when the background of the family is different from the family background of the therapist. For example, a non-Native American therapist needs to appreciate that many young Native Americans, seeking an escape from poverty and finding a lack of employment opportunity on the reservation, frequently move to urban areas, thus weakening their ties to the traditional kinship network of Native American family life and its cus tomary stages of development (Sue & Sue, 2013). The non-Native American therapist needs to be sensitive to these shifting values in Native Ameri can culture and appreciate the pressures they may impart on individuals and families from that tradi tion. In her ecosystemic approach to working with Latino families, Falicov (2014) contends that the family therapy encounter is really an engagement between the therapist's and the family's cultural and personal constructions about family life.

32 CHAPTER 2

The Family Life Cycle Framework Most families, regardless of structure or composition or cultural heritage, progress through

certain predictable marker events or phases (such as marriage, the birth of a first child, chil

dren leaving home, death of grandparents). Each stage is precipitated by a particular life

event-what Zilbach (1989) refers to as a family stage marker-demanding change and a new

adaptation. These passages may occur because of a sudden major change in family compo

sition (e.g., birth of twins) or perhaps due to a major shift in autonomy (a family member

starting kindergarten, entering adolescence, moving away from home). In other cases, external

factors stress the family and demand new adaptations-a move to a new community, a change

in career, coping with a natural disaster, or perhaps a change in economic circumstances. The

family, as a developmental system, typically must attempt to deal with the developmental

tasks (or unforeseen set of problems) that require mastery and resolution.

L03 Family Life Cycle Stages

Relationships between parents, siblings, and extended family members all undergo transitions

as the family proceeds through the life cycle. Table 2.1 proposes a series of discrete stages,

starting with single young adults leaving home, marrying, having children, launching those

children into the world, and living together in later life. While the stages outlined obviously

do not fit every family, especially considering our diverse society, the table draws attention to

the multigenerational nature of family life as the family continues to change and evolve.

Continuity and Change Throughout the Family Life Cycle

If every family lives in an ever-changing context, a key question becomes: Is the family under

stress flexible enough to allow new interactive patterns to emerge to meet the developmental

needs of its members? The answer tells us how easily and how well the family manages conflict

and negotiates the transitions between stages. Successful management of challenges in one

stage has a significant impact on its ability to effectively carry out the tasks of the subsequent

stage. Should the family become destabilized as its members struggle to accommodate change

(e.g., the father and mother develop violent disagreements about how late their teenage daugh

ter may stay out on Saturday night and what friends she may be with), one or more family

members may become symptomatic (the daughter becomes angry and withdrawn; the mother

becomes depressed; the father feels isolated and alone; and the parents' marriage deteriorates).

The more rigid the family's interactive pattern, the less likely the members will be able to ne

gotiate differences, the more the family will be stressed by the need to change, and the more

likely symptoms will develop within the family system.

As Zilbach (1989) notes, during each stage, family development proceeds through family

task accomplishment, and family characteristics of the previous period are carried over into

the next stage. If any tasks are incomplete or impeded, development is delayed or suspended,

and these difficulties are carried into the subsequent stage of family development. For exam

ple, parents may experience fears of separating from a young child and allowing that child to

move out of the immediate family to day care, preschool, or kindergarten. That same fear, un

resolved, may later cause conflict between parents and the child in adolescence as separation

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

ao-ain becomes a family issue when the adolescent seeks greater freedom and self-direction; 0

still later, it may delay separation from the family by a young adult.

Both continuity and change characterize the family system as it progresses through

time. In some cases the changes are orderly, gradual, and continuous; in others they may

be sudden, disruptive, and discontinuous. Both call for transformations in the organi

zation of the system. As an example of the latter, a family may suddenly be confronted

by unexpected catastrophic events (serious financial reverses, a terrorist attack, death of

a young child, or a random drive-by shooting). Such crises disrupt the family's normal

developmental flow and inevitably produce relationship changes within the family sys

tem. The unusual or unanticipated timing of a major event may be particularly traumatic

precisely because it upsets the sequence and disturbs the rhythm of the expected course

of life. Examples include the death of a parent during one's childhood, teenage mar

riage, a first marriage postponed until late in life, or a child born to parents in midlife

(McGoldrick, Carter, & Garcia-Preto, 2011).

2.1 Stages of the family life cycle

Leaving home: Emerging young adulcs

Joining of families through marriage/ union

Families with young children

Accepting emotional and financial responsibility for self

Commitment to new system

Accepting new members into the system

a. Differentiation of self in relation to family of origin b. Development of intimate peer relationships c. Establishment of self in respect to work and financial

independence d. Establishment of self in community and larger society e. Spirituality

a. Formation of partner systems b. Realignment of relationships with extended family,

friends, and larger community and social system to include new partners

a. Adjustment of couple system to make space for children b. Collaboration in child-rearing, financial, and household

tasks c. Realignment of relationships with extended family to

include parenting and grandparenting roles d. Realignment of relationships with community and

larger social system to include new family structure and relationships

Families with adolescents

Increasing flexibility of family boundaries to permit children's independence and grandparents' frailcies

a. Shift of parent-child relationships to permit adolescent to move into and out of system

b. Refocus on midlife couple and career issues c. Begin shift toward caring for older generation d. Realignment with community and larger social system

to include shifting family of emerging adolescent and parents in new formation pattern of relating

(Continued)

34 CHAPTER 2

Launching children Accepting a multitude of exits from a. Renegotiation of couple system as a dyad Development of adult-to-adult relationships between parents and grown children

and moving on at and entries into the family system b. midlife

Families in late Accepting the shifting generational a. middle age roles

b. C.

Realignment of relationships to include in-laws and grandchildren Realignment of relationships with community and larger social system to include new structure and constellation of family relationships Exploration of new interests/career given the freedom from child-care responsibilities Dealing with care needs, disabilities, and death of parents (grandparents)

Maintaining of own and/or couple functioning and interests in face of physiological decline: exploration of new familial and social role options Support for more central role of middle generation Realignment of the system in relation to community and larger social system to acknowledge changed pattern of family relationships at this stage Making room in the system for the wisdom and experience of the elders Supporting older generation without overfunctioning for them

Families nearing the Accepting the realities of limitations a. Dealing with loss of spouse, siblings, and other peers Making preparations for death and legacy end of!ife and death and the completion of

one cycle of life b. C.

Managing reversed roles in caretaking between middle and older generations Realignment of relationships with larger community and social system to acknowledge changing life cycle relationships

Source: McGoldrick, Carter, and Garcia-Preto, 2011, pp. 16-17.

Certain discontinuous changes are so disruptive to family life that they suddenly and

profoundly transform a family system so that it never returns to its former way of functioning.

Hoffman (1988) points particularly to events that affect family membership-events repre

sentingfamily gains ( children acquired through remarriage) or family losses (separation of par

ents, death). Transitions that require major shifts in roles (a young mother with a preschool

child returns to work outside the home, a husband loses his job and cannot find reemploy

ment) may produce discontinuous change in the family system.

Many family therapists believe that symptoms in a family member are especially likely to

appear at these periods of change, signaling the family's difficulty in negotiating a transition.

However, not all continuous or discontinuous change leads to symptomatic behavior. T he

stress of a transition may give the family an opportunity to break out of its customary cop

ing patterns and develop more productive, growth-enhancing responses to change. Families

that have developed effective collaborative ways of coping with adversity and hardship-what

Walsh (201 Oc) calls relational resilience-may emerge hardier.

For example, a childless couple who are thinking about becoming parents (considered a

continuous life change) may postpone the event because they view it as restricting mobility,

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

increasing responsibility, interrupting sleep, and constricting their social life; or they may wel

come parenthood as a move to strengthen the family and invest in its future. (They may, of

course, feel both reluctance and eagerness to become parents.) The discontinuous changes in

remarriage may result in disequilibrium, role confusion, and heightened conflict in the new

family, or they may provide a second chance to form a more mature, stable relationship. The

family therapist is responsible for helping the family see the full range of its choices, including

the possibilities of generating new solutions; the shared belief of the therapist and family in

the adaptability of the family system and its potential for growth and self-healing is crucial in

helping families engineer change.

A Family Life Cycle Stage Model Family sociologists such as Evelyn Duvall and Reuben Hill first proposed a developmental

framework for studying families in the late 1940s in an effort to account for regularities in

family life over time (Duvall & Hill, 1948). The major thrust of this early contribution was

to plot the stages through which families typically pass and to predict the approximate time

when each stage is reached. As we shall see, more recent theorists have refined the notion of

typical stages in family life.

The Developmental Stages

Individual life cycles take place within the family life cycle, and the interplay between the two

affects what takes place in each. The relationship system within a family expands, contracts,

and realigns over the family's life span, and the family must be flexible enough to sustain the

entry and exit of members as well as bolster its members' efforts to move on in their own

personal development. Families that become derailed in their life cycle (and correspondingly

derail individual efforts at independence) need help in getting back on developmental track.

A major goal of family therapy in such situations is to reestablish the family's developmental

momentum, utilizing the family's inherent but previously unused strengths.

Family therapists also need to appreciate how a family's work life affects family development.

The high rate of dual employment for parents can exert significant pressure on the current family

cycle stage. Similarly, high divorce rates, single-parent adoptions, children born out of wedlock

to teenagers or later in life to older women, the prevalence of unmarried couples, and numerous

stepfamily arrangements have complicated the oversimplified picture of what constitutes normal

family development. And finally, families in which both parents are same-sex partners continue to

bring unique pressures to bear on the family system. Nevertheless, the life cycle outlook provides

a useful organizing framework for understanding a family's conflicts and negotiations, flexibility

in adapting to changing conditions, and the appearance of problematic or symptomatic behavior

at a particularly treacherous crossroad. Perhaps its major value is to establish a template for family

difficulties, reveal linkages over generations, and focus on family resilience and continuity.

Family Transitions and Symptomatic Behavior

The family life-cycle perspective offers a valuable context for understanding individual and

family dysfunction, especially for advocates of the structural position (Chapter 9), who argue that problems develop within a family with a dysfunctional structure when the family

36 CHAPTER 2

encounters a transition point but lacks the flexibility to adapt to the changing conditions. For

example, a young husband and wife who have not achieved sufficient separation from their

parents to be able to establish their own independent marital unit may experience consider

able distress, conflict, and confusion when they prepare to enter the next phase of their family

life-the birth and rearing of their own children.

Strategists (Chapter 11) also view the appearance of symptoms as a signal that the family is un

able to move on to the next stage; as one example, Haley (1979) argues that some families may need

therapeutic help in solving problems evoked by a young adult member ready to leave home and

embark on a more independent life. In general, Haley views individual symptomatology as arising

from an interruption of the family's normal developmental process, and thus he is likely to direct

his efforts at helping the family as a whole resolve the impasse that they are experiencing as a group.

Family Life Cycles: A Multidimensional, Multicultural, and Multigenerational Perspective

The most prominent contemporary family life cycle model is presented by McGoldrick,

Carter, and Preto-Garcia (2011), who broadened the framework to include a multidimen

sional, multicultural, multigenerational perspective along with individual, family, and socio

cultural perspectives. They provide a more encompassing, intergenerational view of the impact

of multiple stresses on a family's ability to navigate transitions. They believe the flow of anxiety

within a family is related to both "vertical" and "horizontal" stressors (see Figure 2.1). Vertical

stressors are patterns of relating and functioning transmitted historically through generations

family attitudes, stories, 1 expectations, secrets, taboos, and loaded family issues passed along

from grandparents to parents to children. Members of all families receive such legacies while

growing up, listening to family narratives concerning family experiences that formed the basis

for a "family line" or set of prejudgments in viewing new events and situations. The vertical

axis also includes any biological heritage, genetic makeup, temperament, and possible congen

ital disabilities within the family. Any racism, sexism, poverty, homophobic attitudes, as well

as family prejudices and patterns of relating carried over from earlier generations add to these

vertical stressors. The vertical axis represents those aspects of our lives that are "the hand we are

dealt. What we do with them is the question" (McGoldrick & Shibusawa, 2012, p. 378).

Horizontal stressors describe the events experienced by the family as it moves forward through

time, coping with changes and transitions of the life cycle-the predictable developmental stresses

as well as unexpected, traumatic ones (such as an untimely death, birth of a handicapped child, a

serious accident, migration). Major traumatic experiences-terrorism, war, economic depression,

and natural disasters-are included here, as are social policies affecting the family.

1As we noted in Chapter 1, in discussing the constructivist view of the appearance of symptomatic behavior in a family member, each family's self-picture is at least partly based on "stories" it has created about itself. These stories often are passed along over generations and may be a source of comfort (how we Sinclairs always come through adversity whatever the odds) or despair (how we Garcias always end up with the short end of the stick, regardless of our efforts). Similarly, a group's history, especially a legacy of trauma, affects future generations (the Holocaust on Jews and Germans, slavery on African Americans and slave-owning groups). The current interest in genealogy represents an effort to feel part of the continuity of one's family's history.

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

System Levels Vertical Stressors 1. Social, cult�r�I, politic�!: economic Family patterns, my ths, secrets, legacies

(gender, religion, ethnicity, etc.)

� 1 2. Community, work, friends 3. Extended family 4. Nuclear family 5. Individual

Horizontal Stressors ......._....

1. DEVELOPMENTAL Life cycle transitions

2. UNPREDICTABLE Untimely death, chronic illness, accident

Horizontal and vertical stressors

With enough stress on the horizontal axis, any family will appear

dysfunctional. For a family that is full of stress on the vertical axis, even

a small amount of horizontal stress can disrupt the family system. Any

amount of horizontal stress (say, the revelation of a teenage girl's preg

nancy or the "coming out" of a homosexual adolescent boy) can cause

great disruption to a family whose vertical axis is already intensely stressed.

Should such an event occur at a transition point (in our examples, late

adolescence), family dysfunction-temporary or longer lasting-is likely

to occur. As McGoldrick and Shibusawa (2012) observe:

The anxiety engendered where the vertical and horizontal axes con verge, and the interaction of the various systems and how they work together to support or impede one another, are key determinants of

Time--+-

how well the family will manage its transitions through life. (p. 380) Monica McGoldrick, MSW

In general, the greater the anxiety "inherited" from previous generations at any transition

point (say, anxieties over being parents and raising children, passed on by one's parents), the

more anxiety-producing and dysfunctional this point will be for the young person expecting

the first child. In this example, when horizontal (or developmental) stresses intersect with

vertical (or transgenerational) stresses, there is a quantum leap in anxiety in the system. Con

current external stresses-death, illness, financial setbacks, moving to a new and unfamiliar

community-add to the stress. The point where the axes converge, then, becomes a key deter

minant of how well the family will manage the transition point. So it is imperative for family

therapists to attend not only to a family's current life cycle stresses but also to their connec

tions to family themes handed down over generations.

While the stage model of family development offers a valuable context for conceptualizing

individual and family dysfunction, its shortcomings too require acknowledgment. The

38 CHAPTER 2

concept is essentially descriptive rather than explanatory. By attending primarily to intact

families, it reflects an ever-decreasing portion of American society at a time in history when

a diversity of lifestyles and a variety of living arrangements are prevalent and functional.

The approach fails to account for individual differences in the timing of nodal events (e.g.,

postponed marriages and/or delayed pregnancies). By strongly suggesting that what transpires

within the stages is all important, this approach does a disservice to the equally important

perhaps more important-transitions between stages, which are key periods of change. Its

arbitrary punctuations of stages tend to obscure the ongoing and relationship-based flow of

family life. Box 2.2 describes the unique struggles of immigrant families in North America.

While family development models are linear, family life is anything but-it does not begin

at any particular point, nor does it have a clear-cut ending point. Fox (2006) cites the model of

Combrinck-Graham that views family movement through time as cyclical, or more accurately,

proceeding in a spiral. That is, at certain times family members are tightly involved with one

another. Combrinck-Graham considers these times of pulling together, as when a new child

is born or a serious illness in a family member occurs, as centripetal periods. At other times

(starting school, beginning a career), individual moves take precedence, and centrifugal periods

occur. In this formulation, there is an oscillation in family life, not the tidy and continuous

unidirectional flow suggested by stage theory. At times the family members tend to be oriented

inward; at other times they move toward interests outside the family. Combrinck-Graham con

tends that three-generational families are likely to alternate between centripetal and centrifugal

states (keeping members together and pushing them apart, respectively) as events occurring in

a particular life cycle period call for greater interdependence or individuation.

Breunlin (1988) agrees that family development is rarely a discrete and discontinuous

shift from one life stage to a subsequent stage separated by arbitrary transitions but rather oc

curs as gradual oscillations (or microtransitions) between stages as the family makes its way to

the next developmental level. He emphasizes that families are far more complex than the stage

model suggests and that in reality development in most families, as we noted earlier, involves

multiple simultaneous transitions as various members are undergoing differing degrees of in

terlocking life changes.

Laszloffy (2002) finds two conceptual flaws in the life-cycle approach to studying families.

First, defining the specific number, types, and timing of stages perpetuates the assumption of

universality-that all families, regardless of composition or culture, develop in the same order,

ignoring the infinite variations possible among families. Second, she argues that the life-cycle

approach is biased toward a single generation (such as launching a family member) and fails to

attend to the intergenerational and interactional complexities of families (launching and the

reciprocal leaving stage).

While these modifications more accurately describe what actually occurs, the life cycle

concept nevertheless offers a workable organizing schema for assessing family functioning and

planning interventions. Family therapists have attempted to wed a systems epistemology to

this more sociologically focused developmental framework, going beyond the arbitrary punc

tuations of stage theory in order to view families as composed of interconnected members

engaged in ongoing, interactive processes with one another.

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

Migration and the Life Cycle

Immigrants to North America are a diverse group in economic background, race, ethnicity, and re ligious beliefs and practices (Booth, Crouter, & Landa le, 1997). In contrast to the early years of the previous century, when most new entrants came al most exclusively from Europe, today's immigrants are primarily from Latin America and Asia. While some come as documented migrants, others, such as those from Mexico and Central America, are frequently undocumented and must attempt to gain entry through illegal means. Nearly 80% of all immigrants are people of color. One in five chil dren in the United States today is a child of an im migrant family (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco,

2001). For most immigrant families, migration is a ma

jor life event because of its potential peril as they seek refuge in an unfamiliar land. From premigration stress (often leaving home and loved ones) to the stress of the migration experience itself (especially for undocumented individuals) to learning to survive in a strange environment, the dislocation process is filled with duress alongside hope for a better future. Postmigration adjustments often involve a strug gle and a sense of depletion (Sluzki, 1979). In many cases, familiar family and occupational roles are lost. Family elders may lose status within the family as a result of assimilating more slowly to the language and lifestyle of the new land than do their adolescent family members. For example, a parent who was an engineer or teacher in the old country may be able to find work only in lower-status jobs as a construc tion worker or manicurist.

The reasons for migration (war, famine, relief from political or religious persecution) are often significant, and its accompanying acculturative

consequences (problems with employment, hous ing, language, xenophobia, and discrimination) may be traumatic and affect life-cycle develop ment. Wong and Mock (1997) describe role rever sals in immigrant Asian families, as children gain quicker proficiency in the use of English than their parents, undermining traditional cultural norms of parental authority. Falicov (2014) points to the cross-cultural dilemmas as Latino families try to make sense of adapting to American life and raise children according to the style of the dominant culture. Among Mexican American families, migra tion may be more than a one-time event, as ille gal border crossers who have been apprehended and deported try again for entry or simply leave, returning as work becomes available. Such an ongoing and prolonged process calls for parent child separations, as parents attempt to immigrate ahead of their children, or in other cases send the children ahead; in either case, the breaking of ties within the nuclear family may have long-term neg ative consequences (Santisteban, Muir-Malcolm, Mitrani, & Szapocznik, 2002).

Fleeing one's native country is likely to be far more traumatic and to be filled with intense am bivalence than a voluntary relocation seeking a more prosperous life. Whether members of a fam ily migrate together or in sequence may also affect their adaptation. Educational level, social class, gender, age at the time of immigration, commu nity support in the new land, as well as the family's developmental stage of the family life cycle all are significant factors in adaptation. The experience of racial, religious, or anti-immigration discrimina tion or lack of economic opportunity all negatively influence the migration experience (Falicov, 2012).

Stages of Family Development Family therapists are apt to depart from the traditional sociological view of the family life

cycle commencing at the time of marriage, arguing that single young adults must first com

plete their primary developmental task: separating from the family of origin without cutting

off from them and fleeing to a substitute emotional refuge (Fulmer, 2011). This successful

40 CHAPTER 2

completion of the emerging adult tasks allows the individual to transition to the time in life

when marrying and creating families is a primary concern.

JI fl

From the mid-20th century to today, the average age at which people marry has increased

from the early 20s to mid- and late 20s for both women and men, although women tend to

marry a bit earlier than men (Liu, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009). The later age of marriage or

partnership seems at least in part to be due to more people pursuing higher education.

Also, more people today than ever before live together before marrying. The statuses of

premarital cohabitation versus living together as married people seem to show differences. For

example, 39% of cohabiting households include children, and the odds of a couple staying

together 2 years after the birth of a child are six times greater in marriage relationships than

in cohabiting relationships (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Cohabitation also seems to have unique

gender-related aspects. In one study (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2012), men who cohab

ited premaritally are less dedicated in marriage than men who did not. And for couples who

cohabited before engagement, men are also less dedicated to their wives.

COUPLING Characteristic of the adult stages is the couple's move from independence to in

terdependence in this stage-what Gerson (1995) labels coupling. Whether in a heterosexual

union involving marriage or cohabitation or a same-sex pairing (hence the generic term cou

pling), the two people must decide to commit to one another. Especially in the case of a legal

marriage, more than a union of two people is involved; the mating represents a change in two

established family systems and the formation of a subsystem (the new couple) in each. Less

formally bound by family traditions than couples in the past and thus with fewer models to

emulate, today's young, newly married pair must go about differentiating themselves as a cou

ple with primary allegiance to one another and only secondary allegiance to their families of

origin. (Both sets of parents must also let go.)

Commitment to the partnership is the key to managing the transition of detaching suf

ficiently from each of their families and forming a new cohesive paired unit. In some cases,

living with a succession of partners may precede finding the ultimate mate. Early marriages

may represent a cultural norm (e.g., Latinos) or an effort to escape their families of origin and

create a family they never had. On the other hand, fear of intimacy and commitment may

delay marriage for many men; for older women with careers, there may be fear of losing their

independence once married.

CREATING A FAMILY Ideally when people form families, both partners need to feel they are

part of a "we" without sacrificing an "I" -a sense of self as separate and autonomous. This

sense ofl and we tends to occur once a person senses her- or himself as having crossed the line

into adulthood (most often during young adulthood). Even if the couple have lived together

before marriage and have established a satisfying and fulfilling sexual pattern, the transition

to becoming marital partners represents a significant milestone, with numerous adjustments

(negotiating a level of emotional intimacy, working out power arrangements, deciding whether

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

to have children and when, determining their degree of connection to their extended families

and friends, as well as which family traditions to retain and which to modify or abandon)

required as they become husband and wife (Almeida, Woods, Messineo, & Font, 1998). The

adjustment problems may become even more formidable if partners have different ethnic, ra

cial, or religious backgrounds and bring different assumptions and expectations into the new

marriage. Each partner in an intact relationship has acquired from his or her family a set of anteced

ent patterns, traditions, and expectations for marital interaction and family life. In a sense, the

two have come from separate "cultures" with differing customs, values, rituals, beliefs, gender

roles, prejudices, aspirations, and experiences. Parts of both paradigms must be retained so

that each person maintains a sense of self; the two paradigms must also be reconciled in order

the couple to have a life in common.

In the process of reconciling these differences, spouses arrive at new transactional

patterns-accommodations or tacit agreements to disagree-that then become familiar and

ultimately their preferred or habitual way of interacting with each other. For some, such com

mitment comes easily-they want to be together whenever possible, share private thoughts

and intimacies, experience no problem pooling their earnings, call each other at work one or

more times a day, and focus on growing closer as a marital couple. For others, such a connec

tion is fraught with hesitations; reluctant to abandon the life they led as single persons, they

insist on maintaining separate bank accounts, taking separate vacations, and pursuing week

end activities with friends or separate families of origin rather than spending time together.

For this latter group, learning to cooperate and compromise over differences takes a longer

time; in some cases it is never achieved.

NNING A FAMILY As in the case of marriage, the age when one becomes a parent has

increased over the years. The delay is largely due to people settling down later in life, after

completing higher education (Kokko, Pulkkinen, & Mesianinen, 2009).

In creating a family, the partners must not only provide for their basic physical needs but

continually negotiate such personal issues as when and how to sleep, eat, make love, fight,

and make up. They must decide how to celebrate holidays, plan vacations, spend money, and

household chores, what to watch on television (and who holds the remote control), or

other forms of entertainment they both enjoy. They are obliged to decide which family

traditions and rituals to retain from each of their pasts and which they wish to generate as

their own. Together they need to determine the degree of closeness to or distance from each of

their families of origin they wish to maintain. Each has to gain admission to the other's family,

in some cases as the first person to do so in many years.

In the case of a married or committed couple, at first the system tends to be loosely organized,

the spouses' roles are flexible and often interchangeable. The structure of a family without

children allows for a wide variety of solutions to immediate problems. For example, either or

both of the partners may prepare dinner at home; they may choose to eat out at a restaurant;

42 CHAPTER 2

they may drop in at a friend's or relative's house for a meal; they may eat separately or to

gether. When there are children to be fed, however, a more formal and specific arrangement

will have to be formulated in advance of dinnertime. Beyond making room for children in

their lives, psychologically as well as physically, the couple must more clearly define the distri

bution of duties and division of labor: Who will shop, pick up the children at a child-care cen

ter or at a relative's home, prepare meals, wash the dishes, put their offspring to bed, handle

the increased laundry load, and get the children ready in the morning? The commitment of

husband and wife, then, to become mother and father represents a significant transition point

in a family's life, changing forever the relatively simple playing out of roles between mates who

are childless. As Karpel and Strauss (1983) observe, virtually all patterns of time, schedule,

expenditures, leisure, use of space in the home, and especially relationships with in-laws and

friends are likely to become reorganized around the child.

The arrival of children-the family expansion phase (Gerson, 1995)-thus represents the

most significant milestone in the life cycle of the family. When the couple become parents,

both "move up" a generation and now must provide care for a younger generation. Other

members of the family suprasystem also move up a notch-parental siblings become uncles

and aunts; nieces and nephews now become cousins; the parents of the new mother and fa

ther become grandparents. Overall, a vertical realignment occurs for new family and extended

family together. A major task for new parents is to integrate their new relationships to the

child with their previously existing relationship with one another. A revised sense of individ

ual identity is likely to occur once the partners become parents, and relative commitments to

work and family must be reconsidered.

Making this transition, taking and sharing child-care responsibilities, practicing patience,

setting limits, tolerating restrictions on free time and mobility-all these tasks must be mas

tered in the expanding family system. Young parents, particularly if both are employed full

time, must now juggle schedules and attempt to find an acceptable balance between work

and domestic responsibilities. At the same time, the couple needs to redefine and redistribute

household and child-care chores, decide how they will earn a living with one breadwinner for

a period of time, and determine how best to resume sexual and social activities. The formerly

childless couple must find new ways of maintaining and nurturing their relationship despite

the substantial decrease in time and energy for private moments together (Kaslow, Smith, &

Croft, 2000). Cohabiting couples may be particularly vulnerable to the stresses of transition

to parenthood because a cohabiting new father is more likely to experience less confidence in

the relationship and a greater sense of being trapped in the relationship (Dush et al., 2014).

A young middle-class couple's previously egalitarian role structure and dual earning ca

pacity may break down. They may resort to more traditional male-female divisions of labor,

earnings, and power, which may create unexpected conflicts and additional stress. Older par

ents must learn to accommodate young children in an already established or perhaps fixed

pattern of relationships, often without being able to call upon elderly grandparents for sup

port. Regardless of ethnic group or social class, however, the birth of children, as Hines (2011)

observes, hastens a young couple's need to connect (or reconnect) to the extended family

network-perhaps for occasional child care and almost certainly for emotional if not financial

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

support. T his is especially true in Latino families, where an intricate network of grandparents

and other relatives typically helps with child care, in addition to providing "lots of coaching

and advice" (Falicov, 2014, p. 419).

When children reach adolescence, the family faces new organizational challenges, particularly

around autonomy and independence. Parents may no longer be able to maintain complete

authority, but they cannot abdicate authority altogether. Here the family is not dealing with

entrances and exits into the system but rather with a basic restructuring of interactive pro

cesses to allow the teenager more independence (Harway & Wexler, 1996). T he task becomes

even more complex in immigrant families, as the adolescent's normal striving for self-directed

behavior is accelerated through assimilation into mainstream American society, while the

parents may continue to adhere to their traditional cultural values of parental authority and

control (Schwartz et al., 2013). In low-income African-American, Latino, or Asian families,

adolescents are often expected to fulfill adult caretaking duties for younger siblings or to con

tribute financially to the home yet to remain obedient and respectful of parents (Preto, 2010).

In such cases, becoming independent may not have the same meaning that it does for Anglo

American middle-class groups.

Rule changing, limit setting, and role renegotiations are all necessary as adolescents seek

greater self-determination, depending less on parents and moving toward their peer culture

for guidance and support. Adolescents must strike a balance on their own, forging an identity

and beginning to establish autonomy from the family. Teenagers who remain too childlike

and dependent or who become too isolated and withdrawn from the family put a strain on

the family system. Too rapid an exit from family life by adolescents may also impair a family's

ability to adapt. Parents, too, need to come to terms with their teenager's rapidly changing so

cial and sexual behavior. Depending on the spacing of children, parents may find themselves

dealing with issues relevant to differing ages and life-cycle stages at the same time. Rebellion

is not uncommon-in political or religious views, dress, drugs, music, curfew violations, gang

behavior, ear piercing, tattoos-as adolescents attempt to gain distance from parental rules.

An important development during adolescence that often has an impact on the family

is the onset and maturation of the teen's sexuality. Questions of if and when a teenager expe

riences sex can come up with particular intensity, especially when parents and teenage child

disagree. Statistically, the average age for a person's first experience of sexual intercourse for

both young men and women is about 17 years old (Martinez, 2013). Research with African

American early adolescents suggests that early sexual activity increases a sense of self-esteem

and strengthens self-concepts in both girls and boys of age 10 to 12, but these developments

can lead to an increase of risky behavior (Houlihan et al., 2008).

All of this is likely to occur while simultaneous strains on the system may be taking place:

(a) "midlife crises" in which one or both middle-aged parents question not only career choices

but also perhaps their earlier marital choices (for some women, this may represent the first

opportunity to pursue a career without child-care responsibilities, leading to family disloca

tions and role changes); and (b) the need to care for impaired grandparents, necessitating

44 CHAPTER 2

role reversals between parents and now-dependent grandparents, perhaps calling for changing

caretaking arrangements regarding the older generation.

Leaving Home Gerson (1995) refers to the next period as one of contraction; McGoldrick and Shibusawa

(2012) describe this phase of the intact family's life cycle as "launching children and moving

on" (p. 391). Unlike in earlier times, today the low birth rate coupled with longer life expec

tancy means that this stage now covers a lengthy period; parents frequently launch their fami

lies almost 20 years before retirement. They must come to accept their children's independent

role and eventual creation of their own families. This stage, beginning with the exit by grown

children from the family home, proceeds with the later reentry of their spouses and children

into the family system.

Creating adult-to-adult relationships with their children is an important developmental task

for parents at this stage, as is the expansion of the family to include the spouses, children, and

in-laws of their married children. Once again, assimilated young adults from immigrant families

may find their desire for freedom and autonomy in conflict with their parents, such as in Latino

families, in which children are expected to remain in the parental home until they are married or

well into their 20s (Santisteban, Coatsworth, Briones, Kurtines, & Szapocznik, 2012).

Reorganizing Generational Boundaries

Parents also need to reassess their relationship with one another now that their children no

longer reside at home. Sometimes couples view this change as an opportuniry for freedom

from child-rearing responsibilities and perhaps, if economically feasible, a chance to travel or

explore other activities postponed for financial reasons or time restraints while they cared for

their children. These families see a chance to strengthen their marital bond. In other families,

marital strains covered over while they raised children together may resurface with the chil

dren gone, leading to increased marital strife or feelings of depression and loneliness over life

becoming empty and meaningless. It is not uncommon for such parents to hold onto their

offspring, especially the last child.

Parents now need to cope with moving up a notch to grandparent positions. At the same

time, increased caretaking responsibilities for their own needy and dependent parents, espe

cially by women, is likely. Another family life-cycle stage is reached by the time the children

enter their 40s, when another level of intimacy is achieved between generations and when the

old hierarchical boundaries, ideally, are replaced by a greater peer relationship (Garcia-Preto &

Blacker, 2011). In some cases, the renewal of the parent-grandparent relationship provides an

opportuniry to resolve earlier interpersonal conflicts; in other cases, it may simply exacerbate

unresolved conflict from earlier days. A major transition point for the middle-aged adult is apt

to involve the death of elderly parents.

Retirement, Illness, Widowhood

Fro ma Walsh (201 0a) suggests that changes brought about by retirement, widowhood, grand

parenthood, and chronic illness/caregiving all represent major challenges for the entire family

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

system as it attempts to cope with loss and tries to reorganize itself. Retirement is likely to

mean more than a loss of income; loss of identity, status, purpose, and being an important

part of a community also are involved, and family relationships must be renegotiated. Retired

parents must now cope with a dramatic increase in their daily time together, as well as coming

to terms with one's own limitations and illness.

Some families will have to confront the physical and cognitive declines that older

members often experience. Many elderly people experience simple forgetting, for example;

but others endure more serious losses of cognitive capacity in the forms of dementia or

Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative disease characterized by progres

sive cognitive decline and such symptoms as confusion, memory loss, mood swings, and

the loss of physical functioning. This disease is implicated in from 60 to 70% of the cases

of dementia among elderly people. Caring for cognitively and physically impaired family

members can place great strain-financial, emotional, and otherwise-on other family

members.

Recent advances in medicine and other factors have extended the lifespan of men and

women in the United States; and with more years have come longer periods of chronic illness

and the need for family caregivers to attend to elderly and ill family members. Shifrin (2009)

notes that due to varying family structures and living situations, the caregiver in these cases

is not always the parent or adult child. Increasingly, the caregiver role has been taken by chil

dren, adolescents, and emerging adults. In addition, in cases in which parents are unable to

take care of their children, grandparents, because of their longer lives, are available to take care

of them. One result of this extended caregiving development is that the caregiving role at any

point in life may affect a person's development and add stressors but may also create rewards

that influence the caregiver's identity and well-being.

A grandparent's death may be the young child's first encounter with separation and loss

and, at the same time, may be a reminder to the parents of their own mortality. Illness in el

derly parents calls for role reversals with their children; the process is often a source of struggle

and embarrassment. Litwin and Shiovitz-Ezra (201 I) identified types of social networks of

older persons, finding that those who worked at maintaining a network of relationships with

family and friends demonstrate improved well-being (decreased anxiety, less loneliness, and

more happiness).

To appreciate the impact of family-cycle development on couples and families, therapists

can turn to their own families for guidance. See Box 2.3: Thinking Like a Clinician to explore

this dimension of your own experience.

2 Other Developmental Sequences in Families Early family developmental approaches could hardly be expected to have anticipated life

circumstances over 75 years later. Divorce, an unusual phenomenon at that time, today has

become a recognized fact of American life, with approximately 1 million divorces occurring

annually in this country (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009). Divorce in

evitably touches family members at every generation and throughout the nuclear as well as

extended families, having a powerful, disruptive impact on all family members, parents and

46 CHAPTER 2

Attachment Injuries May Result in Rage

Use these questions to explore the stages of your own family's development. Did any symptomatic be havior arise at these transition points? How can knowing about your own experience help you to appre ciate the similar experiences of others? These questions may also be used in therapy to help families

address life-cycle challenges.

• Looking back over your entire life, can you identify some of the developmental stages described in this chapter as they apply to your family experience? Can you identify times when your family was unable to achieve a developmental task?

• How did life change in your family as children were born or young adults left home? Did your family behave differently? If yes, how?

• Did your parents divorce while you were living at home? If so, what happened to you and your

siblings? How did the divorce change your family life?

• Has your family experienced any traumatic events? How old was each family member at the time? W hat were individual reactions? Did it disrupt the family interaction at the time? Did your family

recover? If so, what characteristics of the family helped? If not, in what areas do you think your family could use help?

• Were you raised by a single parent? If so, what impact did that have on family life?

• Were you raised in a family with gay, lesbian, or transgender family members? If so, did this play a role in any of the life cycle stages or tasks?

• How has your family reacted to the death of one of its members or someone close? Do you sense any enduring changes in the family due to that experience?

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

children alike. It typically occurs in stages, often marked by stress, ambivalence, indecision,

self-doubt, and uncertainty, even when both partners agree that the marriage is no longer

viable. W hen children are involved, particularly young children, the decision becomes all

the more deliberate and painful. Divorce typically involves a change in residence, possible

decline in standard of living, and change in relationship structure. Most families, however,

demonstrate the ability to make the necessary adjustments, particularly if the former mates

provide mutually supportive co-parenting and facilitate continued contact with both parents

(Amato, 2010).

mil

One-parent households, which now represent one in four families with children under 18 in

the United States, come in a variety of sizes (reflecting the number of children and the num

ber of previous divorces), composition (with or without friends or extended families), and

situations (with or without the involvement of ex-mates, with or without financial resources,

living alone or with parents; Anderson, 2012). Figure 2.2 summarizes key data related to

one-parent families in the United States (Vespa, Lewis, & Kredier, 2013).

Most single-parent-led families are the product of divorce, although in recent years their

numbers have swelled due to the rise in the social acceptance of single women of all socioeco

nomic situations having children outside marriage. These include not only teenage mothers

but also women who become parents in an uncommitted relationship or through adoption,

donor insemination, or surrogacy (Anderson & Anderson, 2011). Single males who gain cus

tody of their children following a divorce or who as single parents adopt children-practically

unheard of until two decades ago-now represent a significant proportion of all single-parent

families (Vespa et al., 2013). (We'll consider adoptions by gay and lesbian couples and the use

of artificial insemination in a later section.)

In most contemporary postdivorce situations, largely due to efforts of the men's move

ment, joint legal custody is common so that both ex-partners retain legal authority as

parents and share, depending on their ability and willingness to do so, in the decisions

regarding the raising of their children. In such situations, members of the extended family

grandparents, aunts, and uncles-often continue to play key supporting roles (Everett &

Volgy Everett, 2000). This trend may be especially significant in the case of minority, low

income single-parent families, where a broad support system is common and often may prove

essential. More than half of all African-American children (55%) and 31 % of Hispanic

children live with single parents (Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013), and informal adoptions (in

which African-American relatives or friends care for children when birth parents are tem

porarily or permanently unable to do so) have a history that goes back to slavery days. As

Lindblad-Goldberg (2006) demonstrated in her work with 126 successful African-American,

female-headed, single-parent households, many of the social and psychological problems of

growing up in a single-parent-led family are more a function of family poverty than of an

inevitable breakdown of the family structure.

The most glaring difference between two-parent families and those headed by divorced

or never-married mothers is the disparity in economic well-being; the latter, particularly those

48 CHAPTER 2

One-Parent Families

l 47%

Never Married

27%

FIGURE 2.2

34% Divorced

47%

Custodial Mothers

vs.

Custodial Fathers

arent families in the US �ii;::::::

Custodial

Mothers

• •

I Custodial

Fathers

-i

18% Separated

21%

•••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• ••••••••••

•••••••sa� ...........

j■ Flllhn ■ I

l 4%

Widowed

One-parent families

with young children, are likely to be worse off financially than any other type of family orga

nization (see Figure 2.2). Mother-headed families especially are characterized by a high rate

of poverty, a high percentage of minority representation, and relatively low education. The

chronic experience of poverty, violence, family conflict, and substance abuse impacts fam

ily development (Anderson & Anderson, 2011). Some may take romantic partners into the

household for financial, sexual, or protective purposes. If these relationships are positive and

enduring, this can provide support to the family process; on the other hand, this may result in

conflictual live-in relationships (disagreements over child discipline or conflicting loyalties be

tween the children and the new romantic partner) that can include child abuse, but they fear

leaving because of an inability to survive financially on their own (Anderson, 2012). Many

nonresident fathers do not pay child support or do so sporadically; this is especially severe for

single mothers who never married. In some poor families, although regular financial support

from fathers is not forthcoming, help in the form of occasional groceries, diapers, child care,

labor around the house, and some small, intermittent monetary contributions may occur.

Therapy may help single mothers navigate the challenges to encourage such positive father

involvement.

The divorced mother with physical custody of her children usually must deal not only

with lowered economic status but also with grief and self-blame, loneliness, and an inadequate

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

support system. She must also deal with child-care arrangements, custody and visitation prob

lems, and more. Frequently she carries the entire burden of raising a child alone in what is

often an emotionally and physically unstable environment (Greene et al., 2012), balancing

the multiple responsibilities of work and family. Despite these obstacles, resiliency is often

present, and as Anderson (2012) observes:

Most single parents provide the structure, values, and nurturance that their children need, while they simultaneously manage a household, a job, and at least a marginal social life, with out the assistance of a partner. .. their homes are not "broken," their lives are not miserable, and although their children may have problems, most eventually thrive. (p. 130)

Single fathers with custody also experience financial pressures, although these problems

are likely to be less severe than those of single mothers. Because commitment to job and career

have probably been the highest priority for these single fathers, a shift in focus is necessary,

and not being able to spend sufficient time with their children is often a major complaint.

Those who opt for a close, nurturing relationship with their children must often learn new

roles, change their circle of friends, and rebuild their social lives (Seibt, 1996). Frequently

they turn to extended family members, girlfriends, or ex-wives for help with child care, and

as Anderson (2012) observes, in contrast to single mothers, single fathers are often viewed as

noble for the parenting efforts.

In the following case in Box 2.4, a religious couple splits into two single-parent house

holds following their marital breakup.

While sole custody still remains the most common situation, joint legal custody, increas

ingly awarded by the courts, allows both parents equal authority regarding their children's

general welfare, education, and so on. The children may reside with one parent, but both par

ents have equal access to them. This binuclear family (Ahrons, 2011) arrangement, of course,

works ·out best when the former marital partners are each caring and committed parents, are

able to cooperate, have relatively equal and consistent parenting skills, and are able to work

together without continuing old animosities (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2002). The point

here is that while the nuclear family no longer lives as one unit, divorce has not ended the

family but simply restructured (and frequently expanded) it.

In McGoldrick, Carter, and Garcia-Preto's (2011) family life cycle outlook, divorce rep

resents an interruption or dislocation (a "detour") similar to those produced with any shifts,

gains, and losses in family membership. As we have noted, relationship changes must be

addressed and a new set of developmental tasks dealt with (see Table 2.2) before the divorcing

family can move forward. Thus, divorce adds another family life cycle stage, as the family

regroups and tries to deal with the physical and emotional losses and changes before rejoining

the "main road" in their developmental journey. Should either ex-spouse remarry, still another

stage must occur as all members absorb new members into the family system and go about

redefining roles and relationships.

Remarriage today is nearly as common as first marriages. Approximately 69% of divorced

women and 78% of divorced men remarry, and almost one in three marriages in a year (31 % )

50 CHAPTER 2

A Religious Couple Divides into Two Single-Parent Households

Joseph and Sarah, both previously married, were Orthodox Jews who took their religion seriously. They met at temple services, were attracted to one another physically as well as spiritually, and after knowing each other for a year, they decided

to marry. Joseph, 40, an accountant, had custody of his two daughters from his earlier marriage,

and Sarah, 39, childless but eager to have a family, agreed to take on parental responsibility.

Consistent with their religious beliefs, they were eager to have children together, but Sarah found

it difficult to get pregnant. By the time she was in her mid-40s, they had attempted a variety of as sisted reproduction techniques, mostly ending in failure and frustration. Joseph was ready to give up when Sarah got pregnant with a son and, the

following year, using the same reproductive proce dure, gave birth to a daughter.

Now the parents of four children, Sarah and

Joseph were exhausted-physically, financially, emotionally. Religious beliefs, which had been a cornerstone of their relationship, soon became an area of conflict. Even though their religious devo tion had been a source of their original connection

to one another, they now began to struggle over its observance; Sarah wanted more strict involve ment in religious rituals and synagogue atten dance, while her husband was comfortable with his current degree of participation. As she became more critical of him, he withdrew, which led to further angry interaction between them. After 10 years of marriage, they got divorced.

One immediate effect was a serious drop in income for both ex-partners. Joseph's older children had moved out with him, creating two

single-parent households, and Joseph refused to

let Sarah visit with them. She insisted that their younger children continue to attend religious school, but he refused to pay for it, claiming the divorce had strapped him of any money beyond the amount required for daily necessities. Sarah tried turning to the Orthodox community, nor mally cohesive and supportive, but soon found that community focused on family life, and she felt further isolated. Turning to her parents, she found that they opposed the divorce, blamed her

for the breakup, and refused to offer more than minimal assistance.

Under the stress of being an older mother and single parent, and without feedback from the other parent, Sarah's child-rearing techniques be came more fixed and unbending, and frequent

mother-child conflicts ensued. The children were distressed by the loss of contact with their half siblings, as well as the constant bickering over fi nances whenever the parents were together. Sarah

complained of feeling isolated, impoverished, and unable to develop a social network. Joseph also felt overwhelmed by the task of raising teen age daughters on his own, although he some times asked women friends or his mother for help

when he felt particularly burdened. Both parents felt lonely, fatigued, depressed, and discouraged about a future alone.

are remarriages (Lamidi & Cruz, 2014). Single life is short lived for most divorced persons:

The median interval before remarriage for previously divorced men is 2.3 years, and for

women 2.5 years. About 30% of all divorced persons remarry within 12 months of becoming

divorced (Ganong & Coleman, 1994). Pasley and Garneau (2012) estimate that 65% of re

marriages create stepfamilies, with the most common being stepmother-stepfather (blended)

or stepfather-biological mother families.

Structurally, remarriage and consequent stepfamily life is complex, since a variety of

parental figures, siblings, and extended family members from current and previous marriages

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 51

TABLE 2.2 Additional stage of the family life cycle for divorcing families

Divorce The decision to divorce

Planning breakup of the system

Separation

The divorce

Postdivorce family Single parent (custodial household or primary residence)

Single parent (noncustodial)

Acceptance of inability to resolve marital problems sufficiently to continue relationship

Supporting viable arrangements for all parts of the system

a. Willingness to continue cooperative co-parental relationship and joint financial support of children

b. Working on resolution of attachment to spouse

More work on emotional divorce: overcoming hurt, anger, guilt, etc.

Willingness to maintain financial responsibilities, continue parental contact with ex-spouse, and support contact of children with ex-spouse and his or her family

Willingness to maintain financial responsibilities and parental contact with ex-spouse and to support custodial parent's relationship with children

Source: McGoldrick, Carter, and Garcia-Prero, 201 !, p. 320

Acceptance of one's own part in the failure of the marriage

a. Working cooperatively on problems of custody, visitation, and finances

b. Dealing with extended family about the divorce

a. Mourning loss of intact family b. Restructuring marital and parent

child relationships and finances; adaptation to living apart

c. Realignment of relationships with extended family; staying connected with spouse's extended family

a. Mourning loss of intact family; giving up fantasies of reunion

b. Retrieving hopes, dreams, expectations from the marriage

c. Staying connected with extended families

a. Making flexible visitation arrangement with ex-spouse and family

b. Rebuilding own financial resources

c. Rebuilding own social network

a. Finding ways to continue effective parenting

b. Maintaining financial responsibilities to ex-spouse and children

C. own social network

are apt to be involved. Children are often called upon to reside in two households for varying

periods during an ordinary week, where they must deal with different rules (bedtime, curfew,

table manners), ambiguous boundaries, and different roles (an only child in one home, the

oldest of several stepsiblings in another). Previous parent-child relationships, which predated

the new marriage, inevitably undergo changes as the new system makes room for new mem

bers and changing responsibilities and obligations (Ganong, Coleman, & Jamison, 2011).

52 CHAPTER 2

Financial problems may plague a newly remarried family and lead to acrimony and compe

tition between, say, a new (working) wife and a former (nonworking) wife who is receiving

monthly spousal support payments.

Adaptation to remarriage becomes still more complex if spouses come from different

cultural backgrounds or different individual life-cycle phases (e.g., an older man with adult

children marrying a young woman with no children or young children). Moreover, being an

effective stepparent to a young child and to an adolescent is likely to be different because of

their different developmental needs (Ganong, Coleman, & Jamison, 2011). An additional

problem often arises because the nonresident biological father (or mother) looms in the back

ground, may remain a major factor in the family system, and may cause loyalty conflicts in

children between the absent parent and the stepparent.

Remarriage involves transition from a former household to an integrated stepfamily

household, a process Pasley and Garneau (2012) liken to the acculturation experience of

immigrating to a new country. New adaptations become necessary, new situations must

be faced, membership in two households must be worked out. New food, new rules, new

customs, new loyalties, perhaps new languages and lifestyles all add to the complex prob

lems of transition. For many families, it may take up to 6 years before the stepparents can

form a solid couple bond and work as a team to deal with the challenges of stepfamily life.

Particularly apt to hasten the integration process is the ability and willingness of stepparent

and stepchildren to engage in relationship building and maintaining behaviors (Ganong,

Coleman, & Jamison, 2011).

Adding to their previous adaptation to a single-parent household, now the entire family

must struggle with fears related to investing in new relationships and forming a new family.

Pasley and Garneau (2012) suggest that most stepfamilies have several distinctive characteris

tics: They typically have "greater structural complexity, lack of common history among family

members, incongruent family life cycles among members, and development of parent-child

bonds prior to spousal bonds" (p. 158). Goldenberg and Goldenberg (2002) add that there

may be difficulties in assuming parental roles with stepchildren, rivalries and jealousies may

develop between stepchildren, and competition between the biological mother and the step

mother may occur. Despite these hazards-typically involving disorganization, reorganization,

sometimes relocation, and the reassigning of roles (Berger, 2000)-resilient, well-functioning

stepfamilies are more the rule than the exception.

From a family life cycle view, more Americans than ever before are experiencing transitions

from nuclear family to single-parent or binuclear family, to remarried family or stepfamily, all

within a brief time period (Pasley & Garneau, 2012). The resulting stepfamilies (far more often

a stepfather and custodial mother rather than the reverse) must undergo an entire new stage

of the family life cycle before gaining stability (see Table 2.3). One glimpse of the complexity

involved comes from McGoldrick and Carter (2011): ''As the first marriage signifies the joining

of two families, so a second marriage involves the interweaving of three, four, or more families

whose previous life cycle courses have been disrupted by death or divorce" (p. 322).

Stepfamily development occurs in stages, and each stage in the process calls for gradually

renegotiating and reorganizing a complex and dynamic network of relationships. Therapy to

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 53

TABLE 2.3 Additional stage of family life cycle for remarrying families

"' ~ = g ,c \(, '-'< "' � ,t

'-" Y '7 Y: : {: "" '( C!j ;{0 Cc ,cij .. '$ """" " O /J; \j\ "'- w

,C "' Cv ":: =:( == .;/""" " � � ¼'& j --= "" 0 - C,W / X; =,;;;;

;;, " , - ,� , , -Brnot10mal,�troeess o:6iilr1tamsJt10n:, , - , ' - , ~ , , ,, , , , : " ""' - , ,K

jf�sl ' " ;, ' Rlre�egaisit� �tti'.fil!lcl�, ,, ,;; ,0" '- • - jaf�11elom 0

rrni11tiH1��l'l�EiS' ' .. ::" ·:·" y ;,, " ' 0

,, " ,',

""='Y= "' 7 " " " "' " = "' "' ~ "'"'- "'"""" - "'~"' "' ;; ¾ "' y ?: "'

Entering new relationship

Conceptualizing and planning new marriage and family

Remarriage and reconstruction of family

Renegotiation of Remarried Family at all future life cycle transitions

Recovery from loss of first marriage (adequate emotional divorce)

Accepting one's own fears and those of new spouse and children about forming new family Accepting need for time and patience for adjustment to complexity and ambiguity of: 1. Multiple new roles 2. Boundaries: space, time, membership,

and authority 3. Affective issues: guilt, loyalty

conflicts, desire for mutuality, unresolvable past hurts

Final resolution of attachment to previous spouse and ideal of"intact" family; acceptance of a different model of family with permeable boundaries

Accepting evolving relationships of transformed remarried family

Source: McGoldrick, Carter, and Garcia-Preto, 2011, p. 321.

Recommit to marriage and to forming a family with readiness to deal with complexity and ambiguity

a. Working on openness in the new relationships to avoid pseudomutuality

b. Plan for maintenance of cooperative financial and co-parental relationships with ex-spouses

c. Planning to help children deal with fears, loyalty conflicts, and membership in two systems

d. Realignment of relationships with extended family to include new spouse and children

e. Planning maintenance of connections for children with extended family of ex-spouse

a. Restructuring family boundaries to allow for inclusion of new spouse-stepparent

b. Realignment of relationships and financial arrangements throughout subsystems to permit interweaving of several systems

c. Make room for relationships of all children with all parents, grandparents, and other extended family

d. Share memories and histories to enhance stepfamily integration

a. Changes as each child graduates, marries, dies, or becomes ill

b. Changes as each spouse forms new couple relationship, remarries, moves, becomes ill, or dies

assist stepfamilies may move from understanding the specific structure of the stepfamily to

defining subsystems within the stepfamily to normalize the experience and increase empathy

to assisting co-parenting and increasing communication (Browning & Artelt, 2012). Those

stepparents who demand "instant love" are likely to end up feeling frustrated and rejected. On

the other hand, relationships within stepfamilies that are allowed to blossom slowly often lead

to caring and loving bonds that last a lifetime (Pasley & Garneau, 2012). In some cases, the

stepparent may provide a model that expands a child's choice of roles in life or that offers a

positive view of husband-wife relationships not seen before.

From a life-cycle perspective, young gays and lesbians face the same normative demands to

become independent adults as do their heterosexual counterparts, but simultaneously they

54 CHAPTER 2

must also learn to cope with the psychological toll of living in a stigmatizing larger society

(Green, 2012). Parents often provide social support as young adults manage the transition,

but gay and lesbian young adults report lower levels of parental support than do heterosexual

peers, with a direct link to increased depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and substance

use (Needham & Austin, 2010). Frequently, their prolonged unmarried status leads others

to consider them not fully functioning adults. (The same is sometimes true of straight men

and women.) Especially for those who choose to remain private about their homosexuality,

often due to fears regarding family reaction, they may allow the family of origin's view to be

perpetuated that they have not yet found the right opposite-sex partner. When a young gay

adult is openly living together with a same-sex partner, some parents may be pleased that their

child is in a stable relationship, while others may be further distressed since they can no longer

deny their gay child's sexual identity. Currently, research is focused on how the family may be

a resource to assist the healthy development of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young

adults (LaSala, 2013).

In developmental terms, adolescence and young adulthood for gays and lesbians is likely

to be destabilizing, as the young person with homoerotic interests experiences consider

able anxiety, secrecy, and shame over same-sex feelings, all without being able to share these

thoughts or feelings with family members or friends. While "coming out" may be painful and

occur in stages (sometimes over a lifetime) with different people (family, friends, employers),

it is during the young adult period that the struggle to establish a gay identity typically begins

(Chandler, 1997). Coupling for gay men may follow a lengthy period of experimentation

with connection and sometimes periods of celibacy. Young lesbians are apt to bond earlier into

stable couplehood than do gay men, and because their identity is partially expressed as part

of a partnership, they are more likely than gay men to present themselves as a couple to their

families (Fulmer, 2011). Atti

tudes among gay and lesbian

youth toward the likelihood

of marriage and parenting are

changing rapidly as laws and

national acceptance change

(Green, 2012).

Families led by gay or les

bian couples are as varied and

diverse as heterosexual families:

Gay and lesbian parents face the same challenges as heterosexual couples in raising their children, but often with the additional social pressures of family and community disapproval.

Some are childless couples; oth

ers are formed after heterosex

ual marriages ended. Still others

may opt for parenthood by

adopting a child (see Box 2.5),

choosing artificial insemina

tion, or utilizing a surrogate.

They come from all racial,

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 55

A Lesbian Couple Adopts a Child

Many of the problems faced by a same-sex cou ple adopting an older child, as we illustrate here, are similar to those encountered by heterosexual couples: inexperience as parents, the possibility of preadoption trauma to the adoptee, difficulty bonding, special needs of the child or parents, subsequent conflict between the adults. For gay or lesbian parents, there is the additional question of whether the state will recognize the adoption as legal and how custody and visitation rights will be adjudicated should the couple separate in the future.

Celia, 27, and Brenda, 29, had been lesbian live-in partners for 4 years and had talked from time to time about adopting a child together. Celia, from San Salvador, had been married briefly 8 years earlier, but the marriage had ended in divorce. She had wanted a child while married, but the marriage was rocky, with numerous separations, so both decided it would not be wise to bring a child into such an unstable situation. Brenda, Australian by birth, had never married but had been involved in raising two children of a woman friend with whom she had had a previous sexual relationship. Celia and Brenda had been in an exclusive union since shortly after they met, and both were quite in volved in the lesbian community, from which they received considerable social support.

A parenting opportunity arose one day when Dora, Celia's 21-year-old unmarried sister and the mother of a 5-year-old boy, announced that she wanted to return to school and told Celia she was considering putting her son, Richardo, up for adoption.

Not wanting the boy to be placed with strang ers and accustomed to coming to the aid of her younger sister in times of stress, Celia offered to adopt Richardo. Dora, who trusted her older sister and felt burdened raising Richardo by herself (he was the result of a one-night stand when she was 16), readily agreed. Celia and Brenda had had a good relationship with the boy since his birth, and

i I ii

they were certain the transition would be easy, that IRichardo would thrive, and that raising a child to-

gether would strengthen their relationship and en- I rich their lives. Unfortunately, this would not prove I to be the case. I Soon after Celia adopted Richardo, she and il

�Brenda began to face the prospects of parenting fiand the multiple ways in which their lives had begun

to change as a result of their new living arrange- I ment. At first they tried to create a new life and iden- I tity for Richardo, offering him his own room in their I large house and immediately changing his name to 11

� Rick. They instructed him to call them "Mommy" I and "Auntie Brenda" and asked him to try to feel a i�part of this three-member family. Brenda, more ex-

Iperienced with raising children, quit her part-time Ijob at the public library and assumed most of the Iat-home parenting responsibilities. �

Celia continued working full time as a legal I secretary to support the household. However, I the social support previously offered by the worn- � en's network of lesbian and gay friends began to I dwindle, as few in the community were involved in I raising children. D

At first Celia and Brenda were pleased with ithe parenting arrangement they had worked out i

together, but after 6 months or so they began i to question its workability. Celia grew envious

I of Brenda's close relationship with her adopted I

son, doubting her own ability to deal with Rick in I the easy manner that Brenda, more experienced �

with children, seemed to have. As Celia withdrew I from the parenting role, Brenda became increas- I ingly frustrated, resenting that she was carrying I out the day-to-day parenting duties with no legal U authorization to make decisions regarding Rick.

11:Moreover, Celia's family of origin treated her with suspicion, refusing to acknowledge Brenda's rights I regarding child-rearing decisions. I

As tensions mounted, Rick began to exhibit !._�. problematic behavior at home and at school. He � developed various behavioral signs of increased B

(Continued) I �

56 CHAPTER 2

anxiety (sleeping problems, eating problems, discipline problems). Finally, Rick confessed that he was afraid of being "unadopted" if Celia and Brenda separated and of losing his close relation ship with Brenda. His schoolwork suffered accord ingly. At a parent-teacher conference attended by both Celia and Brenda, the teacher reported

that Rick was easily distractible and hyperactive

in the classroom and that she thought he needed counseling. Recognizing all the signs of increased dysfunction, but knowing they all wanted to stay together, the three made an appointment with a family counselor for the next week (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2002, pp. 17-18).

religious, and ethnic backgrounds, and, depending on their community's tolerance for same-sex

relationships, may make their relationship visible or keep it private (Ariel & McPherson, 2000).

Despite greater public visibility and recent movement toward equal treatment, many are margin

alized by the larger heterosexual society, possess limited civil and legal rights, face employment

discrimination, and must deal with unwelcoming and unsafe environments, including bullying

and the threat of violent assault (Green, 2012).

Regardless of family genesis, and again like their heterosexual counterparts, gays and les

bians are part of a complex, multigenerational family system populated by their family of

origin and a family of choice consisting of friends, partners, and/or children (Ashton, 2011).

They are raised within the dominant cultural norms and beliefs, make many of the same as

sumptions about relationships, negotiate roles and responsibilities, and are likely to belong to

mainstream families.

At the same time, their unique experiences with a homophobic and largely unaccepting

society (often including members of their family of origin) makes their same-sex family life

less comfortably visible to the dominant heterosexual world. However, this is changing, al

though the extent of the change is dependent on the geographic region in which one lives

and the nature of personal ties. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same

sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry by the Due Process Clause and the Equal

Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. This change

will affect very large numbers of people who now have the option to wed. In some states, it

remains unlawful for a gay couple to adopt a child together, while other states allow the pro

cedure (Green, 2012). If an adoption does occur, according to Adams and Benson (2005),

previously rejecting family members may more readily accept their new role (grandparents,

uncles, and aunts), perhaps because having children makes the adopting couple seem more

like a mainstream family.

It is difficult to determine the exact number of gay or lesbian parents, although the year

2010 census identified 646,464 same-sex-couple households spread across all counties in the

United States, about 1 % of all couple households (O'Connell & Feliz, 2011). Many more

are likely to have remained closeted, keeping their sexual preferences to themselves for fear of

negative attitudes or reprisals from neighbors, employers, or coworkers. Laws against adop

tion by same-sex couples often add to the stress surrounding adoption, with the nonadopting

parent often remaining hidden (thus back "in" after having "come out") while his or her mate

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

goes through the lengthy adoption process as a single parent. The applicant may or may not

reveal a gay or lesbian lifestyle to the adoption agency. Others, with children and having gone

from a heterosexual to a homosexual identity, may find they need to conceal their current

partnership from the courts for fear of losing custody or visitation rights. While such factors

make exact counts impossible, it is estimated that in the United States, 37 to 38% of lesbian,

gay, bisexual, or transgender identified-individuals have had a child, totaling an estimated

3 million LGBT parents (Gates, 2013). If we add same-sex couples that have adopted children

and those who have had children through donor insemination or through surrogate mothers,

there may be from 12 to 15 million children residing in homes with gay parents in the United

States (Goldenberg, Goldenberg, & Goldenberg Pelavin, 2014). About 19% of all gay and

lesbian couples are raising children (Gates, 2013).

Gay and lesbian parents are likely to have life cycle stresses and transitions similar to those

of heterosexual families (such as adjusting to new parenthood, sending children off to school)

in addition to some unique to their homosexual lifestyle-for example, deciding whether to

"come out" or remain "in the closet" to other possibly homophobic parents; figuring out

how to help their child fit into the mainstream with his or her peers while preserving the par

ents' homosexual identity (Carlson, 1996). Contrary to some myths, there is no evidence that

gay or lesbian adults are less fit parents than their heterosexual counterparts (Gartrell, Deck,

Rodas, Peyser, & Banks, 2005).

Nevertheless, gay parenting does present unique problems throughout the family life

cycle. Ashton (2011) indicates that these are likely to arise beginning with the preschool

and school-age years and proceed through all the stages of the family life cycle. During

adolescence, when conformity to peer group pressures is likely to be particularly strong,

children may attempt to distance themselves from their parents. While this is a develop

mental task common to all adolescents struggling to find their own identities, for children

of same-sex marriages, hiding their parents' sexual identity may be especially fraught with

conflict. Still later, telling a future mate-or possibly worse, his or her parents-about one's

gay or lesbian parents is often stressful. Navigating these life cycle stages may be hazardous

at times, but doing so successfully may help the children grow up with greater tolerance

for diversity than might ordinarily be the case. Nevertheless, the negative impact of mar

ginalization, social disapproval, and discrimination by the majority culture should not be

underestimated and has many effects similar to those experienced by other minority groups

(Snow, 2004).

A major study by Abbie Goldberg (201 O) both confirms previous research outcomes and

casts new light on a range of issues (and nonissues) in gay and lesbian family life. Her work

shows once again that children of gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents are not significantly dif

ferent from children of heterosexual parents in terms of general mental health. They are no

more likely than other children to be gay or lesbian themselves, although daughters of lesbian

parents seem more willing to consider this possibility whether or not they wind up forming

lesbian relationships themselves. Indeed, children of gay and lesbian parents tend to be gener

ally less gender stereotyped than children of heterosexual parents. They are also more likely to

58 CHAPTER 2

Heterosexual Therapists Working with Gay and Lesbian Couples

Bepko and Johnson (2000/2007) address issues that come up for heterosexual therapists working with gay and lesbian couples. They caution the therapist to distinguish problems internal to the specific couple from problems due to gender and cultural biases. They suggest that therapists need to be sensitive to the external sociocul tural and family sources of stress on the couple, including homophobia and heterosexism; gen der stereotyping (such as gay men are feminine or lesbians are "like men"); issues associated

with coming out as a couple; and conditions of social support enjoyed or not by the gay or les bian couple. They also argue the importance for the heterosexual therapist to know about issues important to the gay and lesbian community and to avoid pathologizing what may be con sidered normative behaviors for couples in that community. And finally, they encourage hetero

sexual therapists to be able to identify and work with their own homophobic and heterosexist assumptions.

be encouraged to be independent than conforming than are children of heterosexual parents.

Goldberg's research did identify a stress in families led by lesbians in terms of the role taken

by the nonbiological parent, who, being neither the biological mother nor a father, had to

construct some sort of parental role for herself and explain it to the outside world. Breastfeed

ing lesbian mothers spent more time with their child at birth than the nonbiological mother,

who generally had to go back to work to earn the family livelihood; but later in life, this dis

crepancy fades when work responsibilities of lesbian parents tend to balance out. Goldberg's

research also suggests that there is not much difference between being a boy raised by lesbian

parents or a girl raised by gay parents beyond boys being more likely than girls to be teased

for having two mothers. And finally, research suggests that it may be more difficult for gay

parents than for lesbian parents to deal with the outside world due to stereotyped assumptions

that men don't know what they are doing and that they aren't nurturing.

SUMMARY

Generations within a family have an enduring,

reciprocal, life-shaping impact on one another as

they move through family life cycle stages. In this

multigenerational view, continuity and change

characterize family life as the family system pro

gresses through transitions over time. While the

progression is generally orderly and sequenced,

certain discontinuous changes may be particularly

disruptive. Socioeconomic status and cultural back

ground influence the options, opportunities, and

resources available to families for coping with un

foreseeable demands for adaptation. The appear

ance of symptomatic behavior in a family member

at transition points in the family life cycle may sig

nal that the family is having difficulty in negotiating

change.

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE 59

The family life cycle perspective-dividing family

development into a series of stages through which each

family inevitably passes-offers an organizing theme

for viewing the family as a system moving through

time. Specific developmental tasks are expected to be

accomplished at each stage en route. Family therapists,

particularly structuralists and strategists, are especially

interested in how families navigate transitional periods

between stages. Passing expected milestones as well as

dealing with unexpected crises may temporarily threaten

the family's usual developmental progress, causing re

alignments in the family's organization. Among immi

grant families, migration presents an especially stressful

set of circumstances that may be traumatic and nega

tively affect family life cycle development.

Intact families typically proceed chronologically

through a series of family growth phases-coupling

(partners moving from independence to interde

pendence), expansion (accommodating children),

and, later, contracting (as children move on). Old