Policychallenge

Family Relations, 54 (April 2005), 298–319. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.
Copyright 2005 by the National Council on Family Relations.

Balancing Family Members’
Interests Regarding Stepparent
Rights and Obligations: A Social
*
Policy Challenge
Sarah E. C. Malia**

Abstract: Although stepparents often play important roles in their stepchildren’s lives, residential steppar-
ents generally have fewer rights than legal guardians or foster parents. U.S. law does not consistently rec-
ognize stepparents’ roles, functions, rights, and obligations regarding their stepchildren. This paper
examines and synthesizes diverse current stepfamily legal policies and regulations as well as legal and
social science policy reform concerns. Policy recommendations related to stepparents’ roles and responsi-
bilities that would better balance various interests while promoting children’s welfare and strengthening
diverse family forms and relationships are offered.

Key Words: family law, family policy, parental obligations, parental rights, stepfamilies.

As many as one in three American children now Cultural beliefs about families exert a strong in-
can expect to spend some of their childhood fluence on the ways in which family members
years living with a stepparent (Seltzer, 1994), perceive themselves and expect to be regarded
and many of them form close, enduring rela- by others, which in turn may affect family con-
tionships with their stepparents (Fine, 1997; duct and functioning (Ganong & Coleman,
Levine, 1996). However, the role of stepparents, 1997; Marsiglio, 2004). Family scholars identify
as well as stepparent-stepchild relationships, is two prevailing perspectives regarding how socie-
largely invisible in the law (Mason, 1998; ties view stepfamilies: (a) as incomplete institu-
Mason, Fine, & Carnochan, 2001). In general, tions to be ignored (Cherlin, 1978) and (b) as
state family law inadequately accommodates stigmatized groups, less functional and more
diverse family arrangements and relationships problematic than nuclear families (Ganong &
(Gary, 2000; Hans, 2002) and often reflects Coleman). It is believed that both deficit-based
negative cultural expectations of stepfamilies. perspectives can hinder stepfamily development

*I would like to acknowledge and thank Drs. Marilyn Coleman and Julia A. Malia for their constructive comments and suggestions on earlier
versions of this manuscript.
**Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Missouri—Columbia, 314 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
(sem271@mizzou.edu).

Stepparent Rights and Duties Malia 299

and functioning (Ganong Coleman). In con- Research evidence is examined relative to the
trast to a deficit perspective, a normative-adap- tension between the legal recognition of steppar-
tive perspective of families acknowledges diverse ent-stepchild relationships and the parental
functional family relationships and forms rights of the nonresidential and or noncustodial
(Ganong Coleman). Such an approach parent (usually the biological father). Finally,
emphasizes social and economic mutual interde- recent legal and social science policy reforms are
pendency among members as the central under- considered and discussed in terms of their impli-
lying characteristic of family rather than legal cations for family researchers and practitioners.
or blood ties (Gary; Younger, 1996). This paper
is informed by a normative-adaptive perspective
of stepfamilies in terms of its emphasis on legal U.S. Legal Traditions That
reform and a more flexible and inclusive notion
of family (Young, 1998). It is outside the scope Challenge Reform Attempts
of this discussion to articulate fully how legal
policies may or may not directly and indirectly There have been few recent substantial changes
impact stepfamily roles and behavior; however, in U.S. family law pertaining to stepfamilies
as an initial caveat, it is commonly accepted (Fine, 1997). State statutes and court decisions
that stepfamily members can be oblivious to or regarding stepparent rights and obligations vary
ignore official legal parameters in their daily greatly, and policymakers generally remain
lives. For example, informal (extrajudicial) cus- biased toward nuclear family ideology (Ganong,
tody or visitation agreements may be arranged Coleman, Fine, McDaniel, 1998; Mahoney,
by parents after divorce that depart widely from 1999; Young, 1998) despite input from social
the official parenting plan approved by the court scientists and clinicians regarding the need for
(Fox Blanton, 1995). stepfamily law reforms (Duran-Aydintug
Ihinger-Tallman, 1995; Ganong et al., 1998;
Gary, 2000). Although legislatures and courts
Purpose and Organization are beginning to recognize diverse family forms
slowly, critics argue that legal reform has been
The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) to sporadic and piecemeal (Gary). Subsequently,
review key elements of legal and social science changes affecting stepfamilies often have
literature pertaining to stepparents’ roles and occurred indirectly as a part of other policy
responsibilities, and (b) to develop empirically shifts affecting interested nonstepparent third
derived policy reform strategies that would bal- parties (e.g., grandparents; Mason et al., 2001).
ance various stepfamily members’ interests while Legal parental rights consist of considerable
promoting children’s welfare and strengthening authority to direct the care, control, and up-
diverse family forms and relationships. Relative bringing of a child; for instance, parents have the
to these purposes, the review is organized around power to make decisions regarding issues such as
several areas of emphasis. First, basic legal pro- their child’s religious education and participa-
cesses and traditions that highlight how family tion, medical treatments, residence, and school
law appears to resist formal recognition of step- location (Skinner Kohler, 2002). Family law
parents are summarized (Bartlett, 1999). Next, resists formal recognition of nontraditional care-
legal issues pertaining to stepparents’ current givers such as stepparents, regardless of their psy-
rights and obligations to their stepchildren both chological or functional roles in a child’s life
within marriage and in the event of its dissolu- (Bartlett, 2001), largely because of strong legal
tion are considered. Legally recognized options precedent that protects legal parents and seeks to
to clarify stepparents’ rights and responsibilities maintain responsible parenting on the part of
are addressed, including stepchild adoption. biological or adoptive nuclear parents (Bartlett,

300 Family Relations Volume 54, Number 2 April 2005

1999). Skinner and Kohler have described two Young, 1998). The law declares that a child
basic tenets of family law that are used in deter- cannot have more than two parents, each
mining parental rights. The first rule, the paren- with full parental rights and duties that are
tal rights doctrine, gives biological parents shared with no one else. Family law provides
fundamental rights such as an entitlement of for dissolving and recreating families through
procreation. The second rule, parenthood as an divorce, remarriage, and adoption. Establish-
exclusive status, establishes that the law recog- ing each new spousal or parental family unit
nizes a maximum of two parents for a child at entails legally nullifying a preexisting family.
any one time. Marital status changes alone do not signify
shifts in parental rights and duties (Skinner
Parental Rights Doctrine Kohler). Contemporary family law scholar-
ship supports notions of responsible shared
The parental rights doctrine is based on a series of parenting, or co-parenting, between ex-spouses
Supreme Court cases (e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, or ex-partners who share biological ties with a
1923; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925; Santosky child, despite separate current living arrange-
v. Kramer, 1982; Troxel v. Granville, 2000) that ments and likely new relationships (Edwards,
demonstrate how fit parents’ fundamental due Gillies, McCarthy, 1999). The legal assump-
process rights to make decisions regarding the tion of exclusive parenthood prohibits the rec-
rearing of their children are not easily overcome ognition of multiple parental figures within
by third parties such as grandparents, steppar- stepfamilies and other family forms (Skinner
ents, or the government (Skinner Kohler, Kohler).
2002). Legally, fit parents are defined as In sum, the parental rights doctrine estab-
those who adequately care for their children’s lishes the legal priority of biological ties. The
needs, not neglecting, abusing, or abandoning premise of exclusive parenthood recognizes only
their children; a person or agency challenging one legal set of parents at a time. As such, these
a parent’s fitness bears the burden of overcom- two basic tenets of family law result in legal
ing the court’s presumption that parents are fit ambiguity for stepparents who may function
and act in the best interests of their children as parental figures (Skinner Kohler, 2002)—
(Mahoney, 1997; Ramsey Abrams, 2001). particularly those who are in residence with
Classifying parental rights as fundamental their stepchildren. Although courts must apply
requires courts to apply strict scrutiny, the high- the strict scrutiny standard in such cases, there
est standard of protection in constitutional are actually compelling reasons that allow the
rights analysis, in contrast to the more common state to limit or overturn parental rights. These
reasonable rational basis standard applied in cases include mandatory school attendance, child
regarding, for example, government taxes, labor prohibitions, essential health care pro-
welfare guidelines, or regulations on commerce. vision, and child endangerment prohibitions
Strict scrutiny standard dictates that state inter- (Skinner Kohler). Perhaps a similar child
vention or government regulation is proper only welfare–related compelling governmental inter-
if there is a compelling state interest (such as est can be used to justify legal recognition of
public safety or children’s welfare) met through stepparent-stepchild relationships, particularly
least restrictive means (Ramsey Abrams; those characterized by mutual interdependency.
Skinner Kohler). The legal challenge, therefore, is to determine
how the law may honor a psychological attach-
ment that may exist between a stepparent and
Parenthood as an Exclusive Status
stepchild while not denying the biological
Parenthood as an exclusive status is reinforced parents’ constitutional and legal rights to their
in several ways (Skinner Kohler, 2002; child (Hans, 2002).


State and Federal Family be honored by medical personnel and schools
Policies Pertaining to about a child’s medical treatment, class field trip
participation, or the like unless authorized by
Stepfamilies During Marriage legal documentation (Chambers, 1990; Skinner
Kohler, 2002). Additionally, depending on
Both federal and state laws set policies that influ- the jurisdiction and situation, state laws have
ence stepfamilies. State law governs traditional bearing on whether stepchildren are eligible for
family law matters regarding marriage, divorce, benefits connected to their stepparent (such as
adoption, and inheritance, whereas federal law workers’ compensation; see for example Ramsey
covers a wide range of general welfare benefits Abrams, 2001) as well as stepparents’ respon-
and programs that affect the lives of most peo- sibilities relative to any damage caused by their
ple, including stepfamily members (Mason, stepchildren. Thus, the law is mixed regarding
1998). Overall, state and federal policies clash in the primacy of biological ties; however, steppar-
how they view stepfamilies based on two com- ents’ preferences and rights remain subordinate
peting models. State policies usually follow to even nonresidential biological parents. For
a stranger model, treating the residential steppar- example, the nonresidential parent’s consent
ent as if he/she were a legal stranger to the chil- is required to change a child’s name to that of
dren, with no rights or duties. Federal policies the stepparent (Fine).
often reflect a dependency model, assuming the
residential stepparent is, in fact, supporting his/ Federal Policies
her stepchildren, and such policies accordingly
limit benefits stepchildren otherwise would be In contrast to most state policies that tend to
eligible to receive (Mason). It should be noted delimit stepparents’ rights and guard the rights
that residential stepfathers, not stepmothers, of biological parents, federal policy recognizes
predominate (Mnookin Maccoby, 2002); the presence of a residential stepparent relative
thus, legal polices affecting residential steppar- to stepchildren’s eligibility for a wide variety
ents likely are most relevant for stepfathers. of benefits available to dependent children
Nonetheless, based on the assumption that step- (Duran-Aydintug Ihinger-Tallman, 1995;
parent policies in theory are salient for all stepfa- Mason, 1998). Stepchildren are considered step-
milies, inclusive references to ‘‘stepparents’’ parents’ dependents for employee benefits
generally will be used when not citing specific guidelines (e.g., health insurance) as well as for
research because public policies reflect cultural programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy
expectations for stepfamily members, good pol- Families, Social Security (Mason), and Higher
icy-making does not discriminate based on gen- Education Resources and Student Assistance
der, and diverse household arrangements exist. (Mahoney, 1997). Federal and state approaches
differ greatly because of divergent policy pur-
poses, goals, and scope. Federal social welfare
State Policies regulations focus on general family needs and
The rights and responsibilities of stepparents trends, recognize and assume that many steppar-
`
vis-a-vis their stepchildren are a central policy ents voluntarily provide financial support (Fine,
issue for intact stepfamilies (Fine, 1997). A resi- 1997; Mahoney), and, thus help conserve gov-
dential stepparent generally has fewer rights than ernment resources by limiting and reallocating
does a legal guardian or foster parent (Mason, benefits eligibility.
1998). For example, even if the custodial parent
In Loco Parentis Doctrine
wishes to grant his/her spouse authority to act
on the child’s behalf, a stepparent cannot validly State courts developed the common law doctrine
sign permission slips or make decisions that can of in loco parentis (‘‘in the place of a parent;’’


also known as a functional, psychological, or de 2002), particularly if a child otherwise would be
facto parent or a parent by estoppel) to resolve the dependent on state support (Gary, 2000). Thus,
issue of when parental rights and obligations with regard to financial obligations, there are
should be imposed (Gary, 2000; Skinner some exceptions to the ‘‘parenthood as an exclu-
Kohler, 2002). A stepparent serving as a de facto sive status’’ rule in that states may allow more
parent is someone who has voluntarily and will- than two adults to hold parental status for the
ingly taken on the role of the biological parent purpose of imposing a duty to support. Yet, the
in a child’s life (Skinner Kohler) and basically logistics of enforcement of a financial obligation
has the same rights and responsibilities as the on the part of stepparents during marriage or in
biological parents (Fine, 1997). For instance, de the event of marital dissolution as well as the
facto parents can discipline their stepchildren implications of such expanded parental status
physically, but they also are subject to the same remain unclear (Ramsey Abrams).
physical and sexual abuse legal prohibitions Mahoney (1997) argued that a private writ-
(Fine). De facto or in loco parentis status is not ten contract is the most effective means available
automatic, but it is determined by the steppar- for creating a binding legal obligation for the
ent’s intent. Such intent could be stated explic- stepparent to provide future child support.
itly, or it could result implicitly from an action Under contract law, the stepparent’s voluntary
of assuming parental duties, such as providing child support promise becomes legally enforce-
substantial financial support or taking over able when it is made in exchange for promises
custodial responsibilities (Skinner Kohler). by the custodial parent regarding other matters
However there are limitations. De facto status of value (i.e., the bargain includes consideration,
generally is not based on the actual quality of or inducement). Contracts can be modified or
the stepparent-stepchild relationship, and the terminated at any time with the consent of both
stepparent can terminate the status any time parties. But if problems arise, only contract rem-
(i.e., at will), even though there might have been edies, not child support remedies, will be avail-
promises to provide future support (Duran- able (Mahoney), thus requiring much more
Aydintug Ihinger-Tallman, 1995; Fine; time and money to establish and resolve a claim.
Mahoney, 1997). And, although this private approach may clarify
a stepparent’s role in certain individual cases, it
does not help legitimize or institute consistent
Financial Support Obligations
expectations for residential and nonresidential
In most states, stepparents are not required to stepfamily members.
support their spouses’ children financially,
although most voluntarily choose to provide
contributions (Fine, 1997; Mahoney, 1997). In The Derivative Model of
contrast, with or without marriage, biological
parents are obligated by statute and legal prece- Stepparent-Child Relationships
dent to adequately support their children
(Ramsey Abrams, 2001). Only a few states In general then, despite some exclusions to the
(e.g., Missouri) have enacted statutes that specif- exclusive parent rule with de facto parent status
ically impose on stepparents a child support and support obligations, if death or divorce sev-
obligation, but this duty ends if the child does ers marital ties between a child’s legal parent
not reside with the stepparent or the marriage and stepparent, state common law and statutes
ends. Other state courts sometimes rely on the nearly uniformly abolish any vague legal con-
de facto parent doctrine to impose subsequent nection between the stepparent and his/her step-
responsibility on stepparents to support their child (Mahoney, 1997; Skinner Kohler, 2002).
stepchildren (Hans, 2002; Skinner Kohler, Most lawmakers perceive stepparent-stepchild


relationships as based on a derivative model (i.e., likely are important especially for families that
step-relationships exist only as long as the mar- have developed close stepparent-child bonds.
riage lasts and do not need to be protected). The potential (probable) loss of a stepparent
Critics argue that the derivative model ignores through divorce or in addition to the death of
the various and complex relationships, expecta- the biological custodial parent could be devas-
tions, and emotions involved with stepfamilies tating for children, particularly in instances
(Duran-Aydintug Ihinger-Tallman, 1995). where they did not have contact with or support
Such a legal assumption can have serious finan- of a nonresidential biological parent. In recogni-
cial and emotional impact on stepchildren when tion of this kind of family situation, all states
they are not eligible to receive support or other now have provisions that allow third parties,
benefits and or suddenly have limited or no con- such as stepparents, to petition for visitation (or
tact with a close stepparent in the event of mari- access) rights; in contrast though, only about
tal dissolution. If stepparents have not adopted half of the states have passed legislation that
their stepchildren, the stepparents usually have permits a third party to file for physical and or
to rely on the biological parents’ consent to have legal custody (Hans, 2002; Skinner Kohler,
continued access to their stepchildren (Hans, 2002). However, despite third party statutes,
2002). Additionally, in the event of the death of many stepparents who wish to maintain contact
a stepparent, many jurisdictions disallow a step- with their stepchildren have difficulty establish-
child the right to bring a negligence suit for the ing the legal standing to even bring their visita-
accidental death of the stepparent (Mason, tion or custody requests to court, much less
1998; Skinner Kohler). Regardless of step- have their requests granted (Fine; Levine, 1996).
relationship quality and potentially close emo-
tional ties, if a stepparent dies intestate (without
Access and Custody Issues
a will), unadopted stepchildren have no inheri-
tance rights (Mahoney; Skinner Kohler). Even Courts typically follow a three-step process with
stepparents who make a will are limited by other stepparents’ access or custody requests (Hans,
inheritance laws that guarantee a share of the 2002). The stepparent must (a) establish she/he
estate for the surviving spouse and biological or has standing, or a legal right to bring his/her
adopted children (Mahoney). petition before the court (through a third party
statute or showing of de facto parent status); (b)
defeat the legal preference given to biological
Loss of Step-Relationship Bonds and or and adoptive parents (i.e., show a compelling
the Residential Biological Parent
reason such as potential harm to the child or
Divorce or death of a biological parent in a step- that a child protection agency has established
family poses certain risks for children who were the legal parent to be unfit and hope the court
under their care. Apart from evident emotional views children’s welfare as overriding legal
and psychological loss concerns with death or parents’ rights); and (c) present evidence that
divorce, these risks are largely financial. As satisfies the child’s best interests standard (e.g.,
noted previously, stepparents are not legally demonstrate that the stepparent provides such
obligated to support stepchildren financially things as a good, healthy environment, stability,
after their marriage to the child’s legal parent and continuity and that the child wishes to be
ends; and this general rule holds even for the with him/her). Although the process of attaining
few states that require stepparents to support a custody or visitation court decision is relatively
residential stepchildren during the marriage clear, the criteria courts use to make decisions at
(Fine, 1997). The risks associated with severed each stage remain ambiguous and largely left to
financial and emotional ties and loss of contact each judge’s discretion (Duran-Aydintug
with the stepparent are not understood fully but Ihinger-Tallman, 1995; Hans).


In the case of divorce, custody almost always few, if any, rights, or they can privately contract
goes to the biological parent rather than to the with the legal parent(s) during or postmarriage
stepparent (Skinner Kohler, 2002). Courts to specify duties of support, access, and or
prefer to give deference to the legal parent’s custody arrangements. Though the legal system
right to decide who can associate with his/her typically does not interfere when parents are
child, but stepparents’ access requests are subject able to negotiate and develop an agreed upon
to a case-by-case weighing process based on the parenting plan (preferably by considering the
best interests of the child standard (Hans, 2002; child’s perspective and needs; Hans, 2002),
Ramsey Abrams, 2001). Visitation rights are there is no guarantee that a court will follow
a simpler matter for the courts than custody or enforce any private contract reached by
disputes because access requests overall are less a child’s legal parents, relatives, and or steppar-
intrusive on parental authority and, therefore, ent (Mahoney, 1997). And, if disputes or prob-
are more likely to be granted than custody lems do arise, step-relationships clearly receive
requests (Hans). little protection. However, stepparents can
In the event of the residential biological acquire full parental rights and duties (from
parent’s death, courts usually grant custody to a terminated legal parent) through stepchild
the noncustodial biological parent, even if the adoption; this final option is discussed at length
stepparent-stepchild relationship is much more below.
longstanding and emotionally close, once again
reflecting the legal primacy of biological parent-
hood (Skinner Kohler, 2002). Stepparents Stepchild Adoption: Stepparent
must show extraordinary circumstances to be
granted custody of stepchildren; they must prove Transformation into Parent
their parental fitness, prove that the other parent
is unfit, and prove that placement with them Although private contractual arrangements are
(the stepparent) is in the best interest of the child one path to solidify stepparents’ rights and obli-
(Ramsey Abrams, 2001; Skinner Kohler). gations, the most reliable way to date to resolve
However, legal protocol basically is irrelevant legal ambiguities of the stepparent’s role and
if biological parents and stepparents are able to establish a legal relationship between a stepparent
reach consensual private parenting agreements and stepchild is through adoption (Chambers,
(Hans, 2002). Short of stepchild adoption, to 1990; Mason, 1998). Although the number of
plan for a child’s future custody arrangement adoptions in the United States is only around
with the stepparent, stepfamilies must rely upon 130,000 per year, more than half involve chil-
the uncertain methods of (a) guardianship nom- dren adopted by stepparents or other relatives
ination by the custodial parent on behalf of his/ (Mahoney, 1999). Under established principles
her spouse and or (b) a contract with the non- of adoption law, the legal status of the noncusto-
custodial parent agreeing to abstain from seek- dial parent, who is usually the biological father,
ing custody (Mahoney, 1997). These methods must be terminated by either voluntary consent
are not binding because children’s welfare is or court order (by being declared unfit) prior to
involved and takes priority. Courts rely on judi- a stepchild adoption. The legal status of parent,
cial discretion and the best interests standard; with its corresponding rights and duties, then is
however, guardianship nomination and a con- transferred to the adoptive stepparent, usually
tract agreement may add weight to a stepparent’s the stepfather (Mahoney, 1999). Consequently,
later custody claim (Mahoney). adoptive stepparents—now parents—are not
In summary, as family law stands, stepparents likely to identify themselves as stepparents
legally can remain quasi-strangers to their step- (Ganong et al., 1998). Only a few states have
children with potential support obligations and provisions in their adoption statutes allowing,


under extraordinary circumstances, incomplete Edwards et al. (1999) interviewed British res-
or open adoptions, which refer to the creation of idential and nonresidential parents as well as
enforceable postadoption visitation rights for the stepparents (46 participants in total) and found
former noncustodial parent (or grandparents or complex and ambivalent tensions between two
siblings; Mahoney, 1997, 1999). main themes, both seen as being in the child-
Empirical research is scarce as to the issues ren’s best interests: (a) children need biological
and concerns that stepfamilies consider before parents, and (b) children need social families.
stepchild adoption and the impact of differences Middle-class respondents were the most com-
in state adoption laws (Duran-Aydintug fortable with, and advocated for, children need-
Ihinger-Tallman, 1995; Ganong et al., 1998). ing co-parenting biological parents (shared
The scant research that does exist focuses almost parenting dominates British legal discourse as it
exclusively on stepfather-stepchild adoptions. does in the United States, even though it can be
Both Wolf and Mast (1987) and Ganong et al. difficult to put into practice; Edwards et al.;
explored factors stepfamily members consider Mnookin Maccoby, 2002). Working-class
when contemplating adoption. Wolf and Mast respondents, in contrast, were more concerned
interviewed 55 couples where the stepparent with children needing social families. Most
(only two were stepmothers) adopted a stepchild. respondents concurred that stepparents need
Ganong et al. interviewed 32 residential parents some form of legal status, hopefully without dis-
and stepparents and 22 children (ages 10–19) empowering the nonresidential parent. Exten-
from 16 stepfamilies; 14 were stepfather-mother sive time spent together and relationship quality
households and 2 were complex households in were seen as legitimate justifications for formal-
which both adults were stepparents to residential izing the connection between a residential step-
children. Common motives identified in the parent and stepchild. Respondents were split
studies for stepchild adoptions included (a) cre- equally among recommending (a) adoption (full
ating family unity; (b) desiring to be an inte- rights and duties transferred), (b) establishing
grated ‘‘regular’’ (nuclear) family; (c) sharing parental responsibility (shared rights and duties
last names; (d) legitimizing family roles, support among multiple parents), and (c) recommend-
relationships, or a good stepparent-stepchild ing both approaches as options (Edwards et al.).
relationship; and or (e) severing ties from the Finally, Marsiglio (2004) explored through
noncustodial parent. Interestingly, Ganong in-depth interviews formal and informal stepfa-
et al. found that only one family they inter- thers’ experiences with claiming stepchildren as
viewed in depth actually had adopted a stepchild, their own. Only 5 of the 25 married participants
and relevant barriers to stepchild adoption (36 in total) had adopted their stepchildren
included (a) actively involved nonresidential legally, but a few others were considering doing
parents (or having at least somewhat regular so. Marsiglio’s analyses generated several salient
contact), (b) anticipated hostile legal proceed- properties and conditions that may influence
ings and angry interactions over requests to sur- stepfathers’ perceptions of stepchildren and the
render parental rights, (c) financial concerns, claiming process as well as efforts to develop
and (d) not wanting continuing obligations and a sense of ‘‘we-ness’’ (group belonging) and a
ties if the remarriage ended in divorce. And, fatherlike identity. Most relevant here were the
although Wolf and Mast identified transferring properties of seeking public recognition and
legal rights to stepparents as an adoption motive solo/shared father identity as well as the condi-
for postadoptive stepfamilies, the lack of legal tion of whether the biological father was present
relationships between stepparents and stepchil- and involved in the child’s life. For most of
dren was not a key adoption motive identified these participants, the biological father was only
by most preadoptive/nonadoptive stepfamily peripherally involved with the child, if at all.
members interviewed by Ganong et al. Yet, some stepfathers developed a shared father


identity, felt as if they had claimed a child even ment while, simultaneously, not discouraging
though the child’s father is actively involved, nonresidential parental investment.
and sometimes served the role as ally to the A central concern is that children need to
biological father, facilitating access and a positive experience secure attachments for optimal
relationship between father and child. At the development (Kelly Lamb, 2000). The
same time, the stepfathers expressed that it was importance of continuity and stability in child-
important to them to be acknowledged as a legit- ren’s lives following divorce of their biological
imate father figure by community members and parents or a parent and stepparent is well docu-
the law (Marsiglio). The findings from these mented in the literature (Amato, 2000). Stabil-
various initial studies demonstrate the diverse, ity is created in different ways: (a) regular
complex range of existing stepfamily circum- schedules for children, (b) regular contact with
stances and the common theme that legally residential and nonresidential (non/biological)
legitimizing stepparent-stepchild bonds is an caregivers, (c) predictable routines and separa-
important, albeit not necessarily the most criti- tions, (d) living in one geographic location (chil-
cal or relevant, concern for stepfamily members. dren can adapt to more than one household
though), (e) consistent and appropriate care,
and (f) affection and acceptance (Kelly
Lamb). During custody disputes, children often
Importance of Fostering Multiple are consulted about which parent they prefer to
Parental Relationships: The Need live with; although this grants children some
autonomy and power over their living situa-
for Legal Reform tions, such responsibility commonly is neither
appreciated nor age-appropriate. Children do
More research is needed to clarify stepfamily not want the responsibility of their wishes form-
members’ perspectives on existing state and ing the basis of decisions to be cut off from
federal policies affecting stepfamilies as well as a parent (Trinder, 1997). Edwards et al. (1999)
the ramifications of legal reforms that would pointed out that children frequently experience
acknowledge step-relationships more consis- loyalty conflicts between parents. Exposure to
tently. However, initial evidence summarized ongoing conflict between divorced couples has
above from stepparents and residential and non- been shown to be more detrimental to children
residential parents suggests that stepfamilies than no contact with the nonresidential parent
recognize the legal and family/social tensions (Mnookin Maccoby, 2002). Nevertheless,
involved with trying to establish constructive substantial research supports the notion that
stepparenting and co-parenting roles within the maintaining meaningful relationships with both
traditional, limited legal family framework. parents is a critical factor in children’s adjust-
Research regarding child development, divorce, ment to divorce (Amato, 2000; Opie, 1993)
and stepfamily relationships largely supports the and maximizing children’s potential psychologi-
contention that, in contrast to traditional legal cal attainment (Kelly Lamb).
options, stepfamily members generally will ben- Children’s long-term interests in some
efit from reforms facilitating multiple, secure instances may be hindered if a biological
parental relationships for (step-)children. Of parent’s rights have been terminated voluntarily
particular governmental interest, such reforms (e.g., to end an unwed father’s potential duty of
would help foster children’s emotional and psy- support; to permit stepchild adoption; Maho-
chological well-being as well as financially bene- ney, 1997; Ramsey Abrams, 2001) or even in
fit children and reduce reliance on state welfare, the rare cases when the parent was found legally
by codifying current discretionary stepparent unfit (Eagle, 1994). It can be important to allow
contributions and encouraging further involve- for the possibility that children may establish


attachments with a noncustodial parent later in warmth of (step-)fathers with their residential
life because their curiosity eventually may be (step-)children in unmarried, cohabiting, and
piqued—even if initially they may be uninter- married families. The authors determined that
ested in a relationship with a parent with whom marriage, rather than biological ties, differenti-
they have had little contact or scarcely know. ated and increased levels of paternal involve-
For example, some noncustodial fathers’ percep- ment and investment, as did younger age of
tions have shifted over time to realize the impor- a child and lack of financial obligation to non-
tance of their relationships with their children in residential children.
ways that they had not considered while still Though not all stepparents develop close
married to the children’s mothers and all were step-relationships, many can and do provide
living together (Edwards et al., 1999). For many needed care and stability for their stepchildren
reasons, it may be in a stepchild’s best interests (Hofferth Anderson, 2003; White
to be adopted by or remain in the custody of Gilbreth, 2001). With the goal of fostering step-
a stepparent; however, it may not be in the children’s well-being, when stepparents provide
child’s best interests to sever all ties with the economic and other forms of adult support,
biological parent (Trinder, 1997; Woodhouse, even weak emotional ties cannot be discounted
1994). Even if a relationship with both biologi- (Mason, 1998). Research findings demonstrate
cal and nonbiological parents may be inappro- that nonbiological caregivers can form close
priate or unimportant at an early stage of emotional relationships with children in their
a child’s life, fostering relationships with multi- care that are similar to those of biological par-
ple parents may be meaningful and emotionally ent-child family ties (Coleman Ganong,
important for a child at a later stage of life 1990; Rossi Rossi, 1990). Also, study find-
(Eagle; Woodhouse). ings suggest that noncustodial fathers themselves
White and Gilbreth (2001) focused on step- might not feel able to justify continued relation-
children’s relationships with both a biological ships with their children merely on the basis of
father and a stepfather. They found support for biological links, instead focusing on the same
the accumulation model, which claims that both legitimating factors, time, and relationship
fathers play an active and important role in step- quality as do stepfathers (Edwards et al., 1999).
children’s lives, and that there was a significant Residential stepfathers, in particular, make
positive association between quality of relation- substantial contributions to family household
ship with stepfathers and child outcomes. It has income, helping cover basic living costs and
been evidenced that multiple parents cooperat- improving their stepchildren’s material well-
ing in open adoption family networks can being (Edwards et al., 1999; Fine, 1997; Mason,
enhance children’s socioemotional well-being 1998). For instance, the incomes of stepfamilies
(Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, McRoy, 1999). are three to four times greater than incomes of
Stepparents often may act as key mediators in single mothers (Mason). Anderson, Kaplan, and
stepfamilies (Walker, 1992), and biological and Lancaster (2001) found that differences were
nonbiological parents together can, and some- smaller within blended families than across
times do, work collaboratively together for the families when comparing paternal financial
children’s best interests (Grotevant et al., 1999; expenditures for step- and biological children.
Marsiglio, 2004). However, more research is However, stepparents usually are characterized as
needed to determine the effects on children providing discretionary, secondary financial
when their biological and nonbiological parents assistance for the custodial biological parent, and
dispute regularly. Additional support that chil- although expected, such support typically is not
dren can accumulate fathers was found by Hof- an enforceable legal obligation to stepchildren
ferth and Anderson (2003) when they examined (Ganong, Coleman, Mistina, 1995). On the
the engagement, availability, participation, and other hand, Edwards et al. have argued that


obligations ‘‘embedded in social parenthood children as well as validate the unique, key
may be more extensive and durable than those of parental contributions made by step- and biolog-
natural parenthood’’ (1999, p. 87). Many non- ical parents.
custodial biological fathers have residential step-
children of their own whom they support
(Hofferth Anderson, 2003), and they may Legal Versus Social Science
feel pinched by the heavy burden of contrib- Policy Proposals
uting to two households, particularly if the
custodial mother has remarried (Mason).
Thus, existing research indicates that stepfathers Laws and policies help define and shape the
do in fact share economic resources with their concepts of social normalcy and deviancy
stepchildren, contributing to the stepfamily’s (De’Ath, 1997); as such, it is particularly signifi-
economic viability, and policy reforms legitimiz- cant that stepparents’ interests have been virtu-
ing these discretionary functions would further ally ignored in family law despite the prevalence
enhance support possibilities. of stepparents. The lack of consistent, accepted
In conclusion, maintaining multiple parental societal parenting expectations for stepfamilies
relationships in stepfamilies has been associated and obstacles confronting stepparents in even
with better child outcomes (White Gilbreth, functional family relationships have prompted
2001). Stepparents can play an important role in legal and social science scholars to advocate for
parenting and financially supporting their step- policy reforms clarifying stepparent rights and
children (Fine, 1997; Rossi Rossi, 1990), par- responsibilities (Skinner Kohler, 2002). Step-
ticularly considering consistent findings that family formation creates dynamic, complex
contact between children and their noncustodial familial structures often with more than two
parents (typically fathers) diminishes signifi- parents (biological, adoptive, and or functional),
cantly over time (Amato, 2000; Mason, 1998; a phenomenon that conventional policymakers
Thompson Amato, 1999). On the other are not well versed in addressing (Mason, 1998).
hand, besides the fact that parental rights are Selected stepparent policy reforms, recom-
strongly protected by constitutional and legal mendations, and proposals are summarized in
doctrine, many noncustodial parents maintain an Appendix. The Appendix is organized
contact with their children to some degree according to six key stepfamily issues, with the
through the years (Thompson Amato), and corresponding legal and social science–related
children usually experience a substantial loss reforms grouped together under each subhead-
when cut off from a parent (Woodhouse, 1994). ing. The six categories are: (a) advocacy goals
Stepparent-stepchild role ambiguity and lack of and assumptions, (b) legal status and parenting
agreed understanding of the stepparenting role authority, (c) financial support obligations, (d)
and responsibilities often exacerbate problems shared parenting and stepchild adoption, (e)
between stepparents and stepchildren (De’Ath, access and visitation, and (f) custody.
1997; Ganong Coleman, 1997). Step-rela- Generally speaking, policy reforms proposed
tionships vary greatly in complex, dynamic ways, by legal scholars remain within established legal
but Fine, for instance, persuasively has argued precedent but try to strike a better balance
that initial empirical evidence supports the con- between strict guidelines (too limiting or inva-
tention that clarification of the stepparent role in sive) and broad judicial discretion (too unpre-
many cases would facilitate resource sharing and dictable). Although such a conservative approach
family adjustment for stepfamily members. Rec- may result in more realistically enforceable
ognizing a legitimate role for each parental figure policy suggestions that are less likely to be con-
in a child’s life could help minimize loyalty constitutionally challenged, it also limits creative
flicts and normalize stepfamily experiences for innovations that reflect complex, real-world


family experiences and needs. Most legal reform stepparent financial support obligations without
proposals focus on establishing consistent criteria concurrent increases in parental rights or recog-
for limiting or extending stepparent financial nition of the important roles that many steppar-
support obligations as well as strengthening de ents play in their stepchildren’s lives. Social
facto parent standing with the intent that courts science and legal scholars have offered their rec-
will more seriously consider stepparent access or ommendations endorsing or discouraging policy
custody requests as being in stepchildren’s best reforms related to stepparents’ rights. Again, the
interests. Generally, proposals by social science deep-rooted legal limitation most consistently
researchers are more likely to advocate for using challenged is the fact that children are prohibited
a normative-adaptive perspective of stepfamily from having more than two legal parents. Com-
functioning (Ganong Coleman, 1997) to mon sense indicates that this legal limitation
push the law well beyond its existing limits. Yet, conflicts with many stepchildren’s daily real-life
Popenoe (1994), a proponent of the sociobiolog- experiences of multiple parental figures, and
ical family perspective, has argued to the con- initial available research findings have shown
trary and contends that stepfamilies should be that children are capable of and can benefit
actively discouraged. Consistent with the ap- from multiple concurrent attachments (Kelly
proach taken in this paper, most social science Lamb, 2000; White Gilbreth, 2001;
reform proposals assume that validating stepfa- Woodhouse, 1994).
milies as an authentic institutionalized family Research findings suggest there could be con-
form is a worthy policy goal. Thus, recommen- siderable societal resistance if legislation were
dations emerging from this perspective empha- passed requiring stepparents to support stepchil-
size that stepparent rights should match dren following a divorce, but in some cases con-
obligations, and the exclusive parenthood doc- tinued support is expected and appropriate
trine should be expanded to recognize multiple (Fine, 1997). According to the equitable estoppel
parents legally in order to minimize unwarranted standard, stepparents will have a support obliga-
loss for children. tion even after divorce if they consciously estab-
lished an expectation on the part of the
biological parent and or stepchild that the child
Summary of Recommendations would rely financially on the stepparent (Fine).
and Implications for Researchers However, courts have been hesitant to grant de
and Practitioners facto rights or to attach obligations to unwilling
stepparents (Skinner Kohler, 2002), probably
reasonably concluding that attempts to force
In conclusion, stepparent-stepchild relationships continued relationships and support would be
increasingly have come to be viewed as including ineffective, counterproductive, and even detri-
potentially long-lasting bonds that exist inde- mental for the stepchildren. Thus, there are
pendently from the marriages that created the considerable challenges to development and
connections (Fine, 1997; Hans, 2002). Existing acceptance of a consistently flexible and inclu-
family law insufficiently defines stepparents’ sive legal definition of family that would allow
rights and obligations to their stepchildren and for the potential of more than two parental
is shaped by prevailing negative cultural perspec- figures (legally) rearing children and help insti-
tives regarding stepfamilies, essentially ‘‘Ôchan- tute normative-adaptive stepfamily role expecta-
neling’ people into nuclear families through tions and responsibilities.
a web of incentives and disincentives’’ (Young, Yet, a more inclusive legal definition of fam-
1998, p. 511, citing Schneider, 1992). What lit- ily could potentially permit stepfamilies to more
tle progress that has occurred in state and fed- easily (a) honor psychological attachments and
eral family law seems geared toward increasing support that may exist between stepparents


and stepchildren, (b) honor biological parents’ shared similar problems, concerns, and stress-
relationships with and legal rights to their chil- ful experiences. Particularly salient stepfamily-
dren, and (c) prevent unnecessary loss for chil- related research includes extant child and
dren. More specifically, state family policy family development findings, systems theory
recommendations that would more consistently concepts and dynamics, unique characteristics of
recognize diverse step-relationship ties while bal- stepfamilies, and concrete ways various stepfami-
ancing various stepfamily members’ interests lies have found to build step-relationship affinity
include (a) establishing residence orders (e.g., and investment, adjust to stressors, and consis-
Great Britain’s Children Act of 1989) that per- tently function adaptively. Stepfamily members
mit stepparents to voluntarily choose to petition also can benefit from assistance in developing
(under specified guidelines) to assume and share more effective communication and conflict
parental responsibility (rights and duties) with management skills to utilize in family meetings
biological parents; (b) providing open adoption or mediation sessions with biological parents
statutes that include enforceable visitation rights and stepparents (and children as appropriate) in
for the ‘‘terminated,’’ nonresidential parent; (c) order to negotiate parenting rights and duties
balancing stepparent support obligations with suitable for their differing interests and needs
concomitant rights and authority and clarifying and particular circumstances.
such duties and rights while married and if Stepfamilies probably will be unfamiliar with
a marriage is disrupted; and (d) establishing how the legal system or ‘‘the law’’ works; thus,
independent stepparent legal standing and a fair a brief overview—presented in everyday
chance to be granted custody—not just visita- English—of the system, legal doctrines, and
tion—rights, truly considering children’s best existing state and federal stepfamily policies
interests, not just their biological ties. As Young could be quite constructive for helping stepfa-
(1998, p. 555) has pointed out wisely, at a time milies feel more at ease about the process as well
when fewer children reside with two biological as preparing them before they consult any attor-
parents, more children live in economically ney. Stepfamily members need to be educated
strained conditions, and the state seems less regarding (a) their current and potential rights
likely to provide support, ‘‘the Ôchanneling func- and obligations, (b) available options for clarify-
tion’ of law . . . should be contemplating ways ing step-relationships, and (c) probable pros and
of encouraging more people to feel greater levels cons of each option and legal intervention in
of [connection and] responsibility for more general. Practitioners can assist stepfamily mem-
children.’’ bers in considering not just legal but also social,
emotional, and practical ramifications of various
options, for instance, by playing ‘‘devil’s advo-
Implications for Practitioners and Researchers
cate’’ to test stepfamily members’ underlying
Specific suggestions for family practitioners intentions and assumptions and to encourage
working with stepfamilies center on education self-reflection. Legal intervention may not be
and establishing informal partnerships or referral appropriate or necessary for each stepfamily.
networks with other helpful professionals— However, practitioner education also should be
primarily estate planning and tax attorneys, fam- aimed at reducing financial risk for children in
ily or divorce attorneys, accountants, mediators, the event of parental death or divorce. Parents
and the like. Family practitioners can provide should be encouraged strongly to put agree-
stepfamilies critical social science research and ments regarding their children in writing and to
basic legal education after carefully listening to, write wills that include a guardianship provi-
probing, and validating various members’ sion. Stepchildren must be expressly included in
unique needs and interests. In general, stepfami- a stepparent’s will to inherit from him or her
lies can benefit from learning that others have any property or estate interest.


In addition, further research efforts are Bartlett, K. T. (1999). Improving the law relating to postdivorce arrange-
ments for children. In R. A. Thompson P. R. Amato (Eds.), The
needed. Little is known about stepparents’ and postdivorce family: Children, parenting, and society (pp. 71–102). Thou-
stepchildren’s perceptions of family law policies sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bartlett, K. T. (2001). Principles of the law of family dissolution: Analysis
and whether or how they should be reformed. and recommendations. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 8,
1–85.
Scant social science research exploring the Chambers, D. L. (1990). Stepparents, biologic parents, and the law’s per-
implications of stepparents’ ambiguous legal sta- ception of ‘‘family’’ after divorce. In S. D. Sugarman H. H. Kay
(Eds.), Divorce reform at the crossroads (pp. 108–127). New Haven, CT:
tus for children and families is available (Hans, Yale University Press.
2002; Skinner Kohler, 2002), as is research Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American
Journal of Sociology, 84, 634–650.
regarding whether maintaining relationships Coleman, M., Ganong, L. (1990). Remarriage and stepfamily research in
with both biological and nonbiological parents the 1980s: Increased interest in an old family form. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 52, 925–940.
would be beneficial to most children (Holtzman, De’Ath, E. (1997). Stepfamily policy from the perspective of a stepfamily
2002). Before new progressive policies are organisation. Marriage and Family Review, 26, 265–279.
Duran-Aydintug, C., Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1995). Law and stepfamilies.
drafted and constitutionally tested, stepfamily Marriage Family Review, 21, 169–192.
Eagle, R. (1994). The separation experience of children in long-term care:
members from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic Theory, research, and implications for practice. American Journal of
backgrounds need the opportunity to voice Orthopsychiatry, 64, 421–434.
Edwards, R., Gillies, V., McCarthy, J. R. (1999). Biological parents and
their experiences and recommendations for ap- social families: Legal discourses and everyday understandings of the
proaches that will strengthen, rather than hinder, position of step-parents. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the
Family, 13, 78–105.
stepfamily arrangements and relationships. Fine, M. A. (1997). Stepfamilies from a policy perspective: Guidance from
Lastly, family scholars and professionals need the empirical literature. Marriage and Family Review, 26, 249–264.
Fox, G. L., Blanton, P. W. (1995). Noncustodial fathers following
to take an active role in stepfamily legislative divorce. Marriage Family Review, 20, 257–282.
policymaking to ensure that future judicial Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M. (1997). How society views stepfamilies.
In I. Levin M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Stepfamilies: History, research, and
guidelines and legislative measures are grounded policy (pp. 85–106). New York: Haworth Press.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., Fine, M. A., McDaniel, A. K. (1998).
in empirical evidence (Fine, 1997; Skinner Issues considered in contemplating stepchild adoption. Family Rela-
Kohler, 2002). Family scholars and practitioners tions, 47, 63–71.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., Mistina, D. (1995). Normative beliefs
can advocate for stepfamily policy changes that about parents’ and stepparents’ financial obligations to children follow-
appropriately redefine the scope of parental ing divorce and remarriage. Family Relations, 44, 306–315.
Gary, S. N. (2000). Adapting intestacy laws to changing families. Law and
authority as well as the legal concept of being Inequality: A Journal of Theory Practice, 18, 1–82.
a parent (Skinner Kohler) to foster functional Goldstein, M. (1995). The rights and obligations of stepparents desiring
visitation with stepchildren: A proposal for change. Probate Law
nonbiological and biological parent-child rela- Journal, 12, 145–171.
tionships. Family policy reform is challenged by Grotevant, H. D., Ross, N. M., Marchel, M. A., McRoy, R. G. (1999).
Adaptive behavior in adopted children: Predictors from early risk,
questions about the feasibility of maintaining collaboration in relationships within the adoptive kinship network,
and openness arrangements. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 231–
a delicate balance among divergent private and 247.
public interests related to complex step-relation- Hans, J. D. (2002). Stepparenting after divorce: Stepparents’ legal
position regarding custody, access, and support. Family Relations, 51,
ships. Nonetheless, focusing on the overarch- 301–307.
ing goal of promoting children’s welfare and Hofferth, S. L., Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology ver-
sus marriage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and
strengthening diverse family roles and forms can Family, 65, 213–232.
help guide policymakers through the quagmire. Holtzman, M. (2002). The ‘‘family relations’’ doctrine: Extending Supreme
Court precedent to custody disputes between biological and nonbiologi-
cal parents. Family Relations, 51, 335–343.
Kelly, J. B., Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to
make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297–311.
References Levine, B. (1996). Divorce and the modern family: Providing in loco
parentis stepparents standing to sue for custody of their stepchildren in
a dissolution proceeding. Hofstra Law Review, 25, 315–352.
Mahoney, M. M. (1997). Stepfamilies from a legal perspective. Marriage
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. and Family Review, 26, 231–247.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1269–1287. Mahoney, M. M. (1999). Open adoption in context: The wisdom and
Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., Lancaster, J. B. (2001). Men’s financial enforceability of visitation orders for former parents under Uniform
expenditures on genetic children and stepchildren from current and former Adoption Act. Florida Law Review, 51, 89–142.
relationships (Population Studies Center Research Report No. 01–484). Marsiglio, W. (2004). When stepfathers claim stepchildren: A conceptual
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 22–39.


Mason, M. A. (1998). The modern American stepfamily: Problems Rossi, A. S., Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child rela-
and possibilities. In M. A. Mason, A. Skolnick, S. D. Sugerman tions across the life course. New York: A. de Gruyter.
(Eds.), All our families (pp. 95–116). New York: Oxford University Santosky v. Kramer, 445 U.S. 745 (1982).
Press. Schneider, C. E. (1992). The channeling function in family law. Hofstra
Mason, M. A., Fine, M. A., Carnochan, S. (2001). Family law in Law Review, 20, 495–532.
the new millennium: For whose families? Journal of Family Issues, 22, Seltzer, J. (1994). Intergenerational ties in adulthood and childhood experi-
857–881. ence. In A. Booth J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies (pp. 89–96).
McCormick, M. (1983). Family law—Child visitation—Alaska recognizes Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
stepparent’s right to visitation with the stepchild where the stepparent Skinner, D. A., Kohler, J. K. (2002). Parental rights in diverse family
has acquired in loco parentis status. Southern Illinois University Law contexts: Current legal developments. Family Relations, 51, 293–300.
Journal, 1983, 57–69. Thompson, R. A., Amato, P. R. (1999). The postdivorce family: Children,
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 360 (1923). parenting, and society (pp. xi–xxiii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mnookin, R. H., Maccoby, E. (2002). Facing the dilemmas of child Trinder, L. (1997). Competing constructions of childhood: Children’s
custody. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 10, 54–88. rights and children’s wishes in divorce. Journal of Social Welfare and
Opie, A. (1993). Ideologies of joint custody. Family and Conciliation Courts Family Law, 19, 291–305.
Review, 31, 313–326. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Walker, J. (1992). Stepfamilies and parental responsibility: Who makes
Popenoe, D. (1994). Evolution of marriage and stepfamily problems. In the decisions? In B. Dimmock (Ed.), A step in both directions (27–38).
A. Booth and J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies (pp. 3–28). Hillsdale, NJ: London: National Stepfamily Association.
Lawrence Erlbaum. White, L., Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children have two fathers:
Ramsey, S. H. (1994). Stepparents and the law: A nebulous status and Effects of relationships with stepfathers and noncustodial fathers
a need for reform. In K. Pasley M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Steppar- on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155–167.
enting: Issues in theory, research, and practice (pp. 217–237). Westport, Wolf, P. A., Mast, E. (1987). Counseling issues in adoptions by steppar-
CT: Greenwood Press. ents. Social Work, 32, 69–74.
Ramsey, S. H. (2001). Constructing parenthood for stepparents: Parents by Woodhouse, B. B. (1994). ‘‘Out of children’s needs, children’s rights:’’ The
estoppel and de facto parents under the American Law Institute’s prin- child’s voice in defining the family. Brigham Young University Journal of
ciples of the law of family dissolution. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Public Law, 8, 321–341.
Policy, 8, 285–300. Young, A. H. (1998). Reconceiving the family: Challenging the paradigm
Ramsey, S. H., Abrams, D. E. (2001). Children and the law in a nutshell. of the exclusive family. American University Journal of Gender and the
St. Paul, MN: West Group. Law, 6, 505–555.
Redman, R. M. (1991). The support of children in blended families: A call Younger, J. T. (1996). Responsible parents and good children. Law and
for change. Family Law Quarterly, 25, 83–94. Inequality: A Journal of Theory Practice, 14, 489–520.

Appendix. Key Issues, Legal, and Social Science Reforms for Addressing Stepparents’ Rights and Obligations
Key Issues Legal Reforms Social Science Reforms
Advocacy (A) American Bar Association Family Law (A) Duran-Aydintug and Ihinger-
goals and Model Act (ABA FLMA; see Mason, Tallman (1995) have proposed con-
assumptions 1998) includes a provision that requires sistently establishing stepparents’
stepparents to assume a duty of support legal standing in order to promote
but only if the child is not adequately sup- authenticity of the stepfamily as a via-
ported by the legal parents. ble family form and to clarify family
behavior guidelines.
(B) American Law Institute Principles of (B) Edwards et al. (1999) have argued
Family Dissolution (ALI PFD; see Hans, that children need biological parents
2002; Ramsey, 2001) attempts a pluralistic Magic, Areand social families; thus,
conceptualization of parenthood, allocat- flexible policy provisions that provide
ing in custody cases responsibility for for all potential sets of important
(rather than parental rights in) children. dyads should be implemented.
(C) Bartlett (1999) has encouraged parents to (C) Fine (1997) has asserted that two
negotiate their own parenting agreements pressing issues require reforms: (1)
to fit their needs. When parents cannot clarifying the legal rights and duties
agree, they should adopt the approximation of stepparents, and (2) developing
standard to make residential arrangements a more sensitive standard to deter-
for children based on the proportion of mine when the stepparent-child rela-
day-to-day caretaking responsibilities each tionship is mutually beneficial to
parent exercised before separation. each.


Appendix. Continued

(D) Chambers (1990; also see Duran-Aydin- (D) Ganong et al. (1998) have argued
tug Ihinger-Tallman, 1995; Mason, for legitimizing stepfamily roles that
1998) has been reluctant to impose duty lack clear, institutionalized norms and
reforms because great diversity in stepfami- allowing for flexible, creative new role
lies discourages standardization, particu- construction (e.g., othermothers).
larly with support obligations.
(E) Great Britain’s Children Act of 1989 (E) Hans (2002) has contended that
(GBCA; see De’Ath, 1997; Edwards et al., the moderate approach is optimal in
1999; Fine, 1997) regards childrearing as balancing rules and judicial discre-
primarily the job for natural parents and tion. Thus, policies should take nei-
increased rights for nonresident parents. ther an overly permissive nor a rigidly
Children no longer are regarded as parents’ restrictive approach to determining
property but rather as a responsibility. And stepparent privileges and obligations.
becoming a legal parent is dependent on
three criteria: biology, marriage, or resi-
dence.
(F) Similarly, Goldstein (1995) and Levine (F) Mason (1998) has conceptualized
(1996) have asserted that legal standing a new de facto parent model, i.e.,
requirements are too restrictive, and denial a comprehensive framework that cov-
of stepparent standing operates as an ers various stepparent-child relation-
improper absolute preference for biological ship aspects and extends to federal
ties. Courts need to focus solely on a child’s and private policy benefits in order to
welfare. better protect stepchildren’s welfare
and strengthen stepparent-child rela-
tionships.
(G) Ramsey (1994) has urged protecting the (G) Popenoe (1994; also see Mason)
child, stepparent, and both biological has been a proponent of the sociobio-
parents, establishing nonnuclear family logical family perspective, i.e., in order
norms, and recognizing diverse family to promote their own genes, people
structures. will give unstintingly only to their bio-
logical children. Thus, a central advo-
cacy goal is to encourage married,
biological, two-parent families.
(H) Magistrate Judge Redman (1991; also (H) Skinner and Kohler (2002) have
see Duran-Aydintug Ihinger-Tallman) argued for establishing a legal struc-
has asserted that a new and responsible sys- ture that facilitates collaborative rela-
tem of family law is overdue. tionships, even between multiple
adults in nontraditional or extended
kinship networks.
(I) Uniform Adoption Act open adoption (I) Visher (personal communication
provision (UAA; see Mahoney, 1997, to D. Samuels, Esq., see Duran-
1999) aspires to increase the number of Aydintug Ihinger-allman) has


Appendix. Continued

stepchild adoptions in order to give more identified two main policy concerns:
children the advantage of living in a house- (1) overt and covert biases against
hold with two legal parents. stepfamilies as a viable family form,
and (2) concomitant rights will not
accompany increased stepparent
duties.
(J) Young (1998) has argued for a more
inclusive reconceptualization of the family
to include nontraditional family units and
the range of roles potentially played by var-
ious actors, such as stepparents, in a child’s
life.
Legal status and (A) ABA FLMA strengthens stepparents’ (A) Edwards et al. (1999) have argued
parenting rights postdivorce but fails to clarify their for empowering stepparents without
authority rights during the marriage and does not deal disempowering legal parents. Step-
with support obligations if the marriage parents need some form of legal sta-
ends (at the period of maximum economic tus via stepchild adoption and or
vulnerability for children; Amato, 2000). parental responsibility.
(B) ALI PFD reflects the societal view that (B) Fine (1997) also has suggested
a child’s legal parents ordinarily should implementing a residence order (RO)
retain parental responsibility, while recog- option, one that specifically focused
nizing exceptional circumstances in which on stepparent roles and the needs of
a child’s needs are best served by other psy- diverse stepfamilies.
chological parent(s).
(C) Bartlett (1999) has asserted that explicit (C) Ganong et al. (1998) have recom-
rules are needed to define the relevant mended establishing a generalized
functional parent status to be protected, parental responsibility status for step-
while maintaining parenthood as an exclu- parents.
sive status.
(D) GBCA provides how to petition for a res- (D) Hans (2002) has suggested measur-
idence order (RO) to assume legal parental ing the de facto parent relationship
responsibility (available after 2 years of core- on a continuum rather than in abso-
sidence) for those who wish to take on the lute terms, with corresponding
rights and duties of parenthood, including degrees of parental rights and respon-
support. sibilities.
(E) Goldstein (1995) has contended that (E) Mason (1998) has asserted that
courts’ focus has been diverted from child- stepparents be categorized either as de
ren’s well-being with the widespread facto parents or not (and, if not,
requirement of proving an in loco parentis essentially legally nonexistent). De
relationship to establish stepparent stand- facto status arises if (1) legally mar-
ing to petition for access or as grounds to ried to a child’s natural parent and
grant them access rights. primarily resides with the stepchild,
or (2) provides at least 50% of the
stepchild’s financial support.


Appendix. Continued

(F) Ramsey (1994) has endorsed establishing (F) Popenoe (1994) has argued that, on
an RO option (similar to Great Britain’s), the contrary, stepfamilies should be
both to clarify rights and duties and to actively discouraged. (Note: This is
legitimate the role of a stepparent, without beyond the stranger model, which is
diminishing the rights of the biological neutral as to state activity.)
parents.
(G) Switzerland stepparent policy (Swiss law; (G) Skinner and Kohler (2002) have
see Edwards et al.) provides that steppar- recommended that parental rights
ents are treated as foster parents, with the not be bestowed automatically, but
requisite obligations and authority. more than two adults could be legally
recognized as parents in instances
when they already are assuming such
roles and responsibilities.
(H) Visher as well as Duran-Aydintug
and Ihinger-Tallman (1995) have
endorsed creating an RO option that
is attainable only after the 5th year of
marriage to the custodial parent.
Financial (A) ABA FLMA provides that a support duty (A) Duran-Aydintug and Ihinger-
support may be imposed even if a close step- Tallman have argued that as long as
obligations relationship does not exist, but the act is associated rights accompany the
silent as to what happens if the stepparent support obligation throughout mar-
and custodial parent divorce. riage, stepparent support continues
postdivorce.
(B) GBCA imposes no financial obligations (B) Fine (1997) has recommended that
on stepparents, but they can be held liable policies should provide stepparents
for support after divorce if they treated with the option (but not the require-
a stepchild as a child of the family. ment) of becoming more involved in
stepchildren’s lives, i.e., assuming
parental rights and responsibilities.
(C) Chambers has argued that a duty to sup- (C) Mason (1998) has asserted that
port should be strictly voluntary for step- stepparents would provide mandatory
parents, who should not be held responsible support during marriage, but, if the
for stepchildren after divorce when they marriage ends, a support formula that
never developed a close relationship. matches half the number of years of
dependency would be applied as
a transitional cushion. Also, minor
stepchildren with a de facto parent
would be treated as his/her natural
child for public and private benefits,
including inheritance rights (see also
Gary, 2000, who has offered a similar
proposal).


Appendix. Continued

(D) Ramsey (1994) has contended that a sup-
port duty will exist to the extent specified
in ROs, noting that such would remain in
effect even in the event of divorce.
(E) Redman (1991) has asserted that the re-
placement parent would remain financially
responsible for stepchildren, unless and
until the natural parent remarries another.
(F) Swiss law provides that stepparents may
be expected to support the residential bio-
logical parent (and his/her children).
Shared (A) ALI PFD proposes three levels of parental (A) Edwards et al. (1999) have argued
parenting and status: (1) legal parents (traditional); (2) par- that co-parenting is a good idea in
stepchild ent by estoppel (provides support, living to- theory but difficult to put into prac-
adoption gether for 2 years or greater, both legal tice and that adoption should not
parents agree, etc.); or (3) de facto parent occur too soon because building rela-
(less stringent requirements, includes either tionships takes time.
implicit or explicit consent of only one legal
parent).
(B) Bartlett has argued that responsible bio- (B) Ganong et al. (1998) have asserted
logical parents should have sufficient access that incomplete (open) adoptions are
at divorce to maintain a meaningful rela- a better match to stepfamilies’ real
tionship with their children, even if that role experiences.
parent has not been substantially engaged
in a caretaking role.
(C) Chambers has promoted voluntary (C) Mason (1998) has proposed that
adoption but not completely cutting off stepparents be empowered as an addi-
the other biological parent in the process. tional parent (with de facto status
giving rise to basically the same par-
enting rights and duties as a natural
parent) and that noncustodial
parents’ existing rights and duties not
be invalidated.
(D) GBCA provides that the RO does not (D) Visher has recommended moving
affect other (biological) parents’ rights and slowly when considering adoption
responsibilities, so such concerns are not because terminating parental ties may
applicable. have a serious emotional impact on
children and to ensure one is not
forcing the stepfamily into a ‘‘regular’’
family.
(E) The European model of simple adoption
(law in many European nations; see
Edwards et al.) creates a new legal parent-
child relationship through adoption while


Appendix. Continued

preserving the parental relationship with
the two biological parents.
(F) UAA encourages voluntary consent by
noncustodial parents to terminate their
parenting rights by providing for enforce-
able postadoption visitation rights for bio-
logical (ex-)parents.
Access and (A) ABA FLMA takes a two-tiered approach: (A) Duran-Aydintug and Ihinger-Tall-
visitation (1) Establish in court a legal basis (stand- man have asserted that, regardless of
ing) to seek access (i.e., consider steppar- RO status, if a stepfamily ends in
ent’s role in child’s life, financial support divorce, requests for stepparent access
provided, and or whether a detriment to should be heard by courts, and access
child if denied access); then, (2) a court rights would be conditional upon the
will analyze whether access would be in the length, nature, and significance of the
child’s best interests. stepparent-stepchild relationship.
(B) ALI PFD provides that stepparents who (B) Fine has argued simply that step-
achieve de facto status could be awarded parents should have visitation rights
regular access based on an approximation following divorce.
approach (similar to Bartlett) that was
developed in reaction to widespread dissat-
isfaction with ambiguity of the best interest
standard.
(C) Bartlett has argued that only biological (C) Hans has endorsed considering
or functional parents who lived with a child four factors for stepparent access
for a significant period and shared in care- (McCormick, 1983), each on a con-
taking functions should be awarded access, tinuum: (1) length of time the child
in order to maintain continuity and stabil- lived with a stepparent, (2) child’s
ity for children. age, (3) noncustodial parent’s rela-
tionship with the child, and (4) rela-
tionship between stepparent and
custodial parent.
(D) Chambers has recommended permitting (D) Mason has argued that de facto
generous continued contact between parents should have standing to seek
stepparents and stepchildren when both visitation.
desire access and coresided for substantial
periods.
(E) GBCA provides that stepparents may
apply for a visitation order.
(F) Goldstein has asserted that courts need to
solely examine children’s best interests,
regardless of whether a stepparent can first
be established as a de facto parent.


Appendix. Continued

(G) Ramsey has argued that if step- and or
biological parent(s) dispute access rights,
the legal presumption should be main-
tained that a custodial parent’s choice con-
trols, absent extraordinary circumstances.
(H) Young has proposed that access should
be facilitated and encouraged for parental
figures who have created special relation-
ships with children, serving supplementary
or complementary parenting roles.
Custody (A) ABA FLMA again takes a two-tiered (A) Duran-Aydintug and Ihinger-Tall-
approach: (1) A stepparent must establish man have argued that stepparent cus-
standing, then (2) meet a higher burden of tody requests should be permitted
presenting clear and convincing evidence and heard, conditional upon the
that she/he is the better custodial parent. length, nature, and significance of the
step-relationship.
(B) ALI PFD provides that postdivorce par- (B) Fine has suggested that stepparents
enting responsibilities will reflect a continu- should have the option of contesting
ation of caregiving patterns during custody in certain circumstances.
marriage, unless those with parental status
otherwise agree or extenuating circum-
stances exist.
(C) Bartlett has supported upholding a bio- (C) Holtzman (2002) has argued that
logical parent preference for custody and case law precedent, based on a series of
decisions related to childrearing. U.S. Supreme Court decisions regard-
ing unwed fathers, supports courts
adopting an alternative custody family
relations doctrine, where physical cus-
tody would be awarded to one parent
or set of parents with whom a child is
psychologically attached, as indicated
by the amount and kind of contact the
child has with the adult(s) and infor-
mation provided by the child. The
doctrine would facilitate preserving
past functional relationships within
(multiple) current family units rather
than adversarial competition and cut-
ting off legal rights or access for bio-
logical and nonbiological parents.


Appendix. Continued

(D) Chambers has proposed that children be (D) Mason has argued that de facto
placed with their primary caregiver, irre- parents should have standing to seek
spective of biological ties, providing a step- custody.
parent desires continuing contact. If
custody disputes arise, policies should
encourage biological and caretaking step-
parents to negotiate private agreements
together, considering respective family
members’ needs.
(E) Levine has contended that, absent statu-
tory changes, in loco parentis doctrine is
the courts’ best option for recognizing cir-
cumstances where a child’s best interests lie
with stepparent custody awards.
(F) Ramsey has argued that continuity should
prevail over biology by relying on a primary
caregiver presumption, e.g., rather than
strictly on a child’s best interests.
(G) UAA upholds courts applying the best
interests standard.
(H) Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act
third-party provision (see Hans) only
grants stepparents standing to petition for
custody when a child is not in the physical
custody of a biological or legal parent.
(I) Young has proposed that ultimate paren-
tal decision-making authority should be
allocated to the primary caregiver(s), i.e.,
the core family unit.

Note. Family law model acts or uniform codes included have been created by committees of legal experts with the intent to increase consistency across state
jurisdictions by developing comprehensive family law proposals that incorporate accepted current legal trends and well-recognized needed policy reforms.
Uniform acts in themselves are not binding anywhere until they have been enacted in whole or in part by state lawmakers, but even in state jurisdictions that
have not yet adopted such codes; traditionally they are influential with the courts.

Policychallenge

More Related Content

What's hot (7)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Policychallenge (20)

Policychallenge