1Families and Children JupiterimagesCreatasThinkstock.docx

1Families and Children
Jupiterimages/Creatas/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the
following:
ሁ Assess the various definitions of family, and explain the key
functions that families provide to their
members and communities.
ሁ Distinguish key features in American history that have
affected how families are structured.
ሁ Assess how changes to the idea of family have influenced
our concepts of marriage, gender roles,
and social trends.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Section 1.1Understanding the Family
Introduction
Throughout history, children have represented society’s hope
for survival and the future.
Thus, their development and survival has always been an
essential part of any society. How-

ever, as the world has developed, changed, and progressed, so
too has the way the next gen-
eration is raised. Raising children in today’s society can mean
many different things. Our goal
in this book is to explore family styles and dynamics, child
development, and the rich diversity
of today’s families. Understanding how children develop and
interact with their families and
communities will help you anticipate challenges and develop
effective strategies for working
with children and their families.
This chapter will provide a foundation for many of the concepts
we will discuss throughout
this book, starting with definitions of what it means to be a
family and an exploration of family
functions and structures. The second section of this chapter will
cover some of the key eras
in American history that have affected how families formed,
developed, and operated. In the
third and final section of this chapter, we will examine how
changes to the idea of family have
influenced traditional family roles and larger societal trends.
Keep an open mind as you read
this chapter and be prepared to challenge what you know about
families.
1.1 Understanding the Family
Understanding how families evolve and function in society is
critical to being able to work
effectively with them. This first section is intended to serve as a
foundation for many of the
concepts discussed throughout this book. In our quest to
understand family, we will begin by
attempting to define family. We will begin this quest by
meeting Todd and Sharon in the fol-

lowing The Evolving Family feature box. Todd and Sharon are
members of two types of fami-
lies we will follow throughout this chapter.
Defining Family
Families are generally viewed as the primary unit in which
children are raised and learn
about the world. However, defining family is not an easy thing
to do. There are a variety of per-
spectives on what it means to be a family. Representing the
historical perspective, Elkin and
Handel (1978) defined family as “the first unit with which
children have a continuous contact
and the first context in which socialization patterns develop”
(p.118). The historical notion of
the traditional family included “married partners and children
residing in a household.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective acknowledges that family
structures can vary and offers
the following definitions of family:
1. A traditional “nuclear family” of two parents and their
children, and where the par-
ents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their
children;
2. An extended-kin model of family made up of a community of
parents, siblings,
grandparents and other relatives which should be recognized as
a primary family,
even if the blood-ties are not as strong as in a nuclear family;
and
3. An individualist model where family members are
autonomous and individuality

should be respected (Dolgin, 2002).
And according to the U.S. Census Bureau,
T h e e v O L v I n g F a m I L y : M E E T T O D D A n D
S H A R O n
Family composition and roles change over one’s lifespan.
During infancy and the early
years of child development, individuals are typically cared for
by their family. As individu-
als age and maturation occurs, the family composition changes,
adapts, or is intentionally
modified. As unique as the individuals who comprise today’s
families are, so too are the
structures and processes by which families exist. In this
chapter, we will follow Todd and
Sharon as they experience the evolution of family. As you read
these features, consider how
external influences have shaped your life, expectations, and
definition of family.
Todd
After Todd’s parents divorced, their shared custody agreement
determined that he would
spend four days of the week at his mother’s home with her new
husband and his three chil-
dren from a previous relationship, and three days, including
weekends, with his father. The
split was originally amicable until Todd’s mother remarried. His
parents worked very hard
to reassure Todd that their divorce had nothing to do with him
and that for the most part
everything else would remain the same. Todd remained active in
the extracurricular activ-
ities he had always participated in since childhood, and stayed
at his mother’s house four

out of five weekdays so that he could remain at his current high
school for his Junior and
Senior years. While Todd was typically an A and B student, his
grades declined due to the
added family stress he experienced before, during, and after his
parents’ divorce. Todd’s
parents send him to a therapist once a week for added support.
Through conversations
with Todd, his therapist quickly noticed that Monday mornings
seemed to be a difficult
time for Todd. She noted that while Todd’s time at his mother’s
house included supervised
activities with the family, his father’s efforts to provide
financial support left little time for
leisure activities.
Sharon
Sharon’s parents truly believed in family first, so when her
paternal grandfather passed
away and her grandmother’s health began to decline, Sharon’s
family quickly relocated to
her father’s hometown to be closer to her ailing grandmother.
Sharon’s mother, a teaching
assistant, quickly found work with a child care program in the
area and her father trans-
ferred to his company’s local office. In an effort to maintain a
sense of normalcy, the fam-
ily decided to move into a small rental home near Sharon’s
grandmother. After Sharon’s
mother was laid off in a reduction in force, her parents found it
difficult to maintain the
mortgage on both her grandmother’s home, which had been in
the family for several gener-
ations, and on their rental home. Eventually, Sharon’s family
moved into her grandmother’s
home. Sharon quickly became the primary caregiver for her

grandmother and younger sis-
ter, as her mother worked with a temp agency and her father
worked overtime in an effort
to maintain the middle-class lifestyle to which their family had
become accustomed.
Discussion Questions
1. How does Todd’s family composition differ from Sharon’s?
2. What do you think are the anticipated challenges and benefits
of each family’s
composition?
Introduction
Throughout history, children have represented society’s hope
for survival and the future.
Thus, their development and survival has always been an
essential part of any society. How-
ever, as the world has developed, changed, and progressed, so
too has the way the next gen-
eration is raised. Raising children in today’s society can mean
many different things. Our goal
in this book is to explore family styles and dynamics, child
development, and the rich diversity
of today’s families. Understanding how children develop and
interact with their families and
communities will help you anticipate challenges and develop
effective strategies for working
with children and their families.

This chapter will provide a foundation for many of the concepts
we will discuss throughout
this book, starting with definitions of what it means to be a
family and an exploration of family
functions and structures. The second section of this chapter will
cover some of the key eras
in American history that have affected how families formed,
developed, and operated. In the
third and final section of this chapter, we will examine how
changes to the idea of family have
influenced traditional family roles and larger societal trends.
Keep an open mind as you read
this chapter and be prepared to challenge what you know about
families.
1.1 Understanding the Family
Understanding how families evolve and function in society is
critical to being able to work
effectively with them. This first section is intended to serve as a
foundation for many of the
concepts discussed throughout this book. In our quest to
understand family, we will begin by
attempting to define family. We will begin this quest by
meeting Todd and Sharon in the fol-
lowing The Evolving Family feature box. Todd and Sharon are
members of two types of fami-
lies we will follow throughout this chapter.
Defining Family
Families are generally viewed as the primary unit in which
children are raised and learn
about the world. However, defining family is not an easy thing
to do. There are a variety of per-
spectives on what it means to be a family. Representing the
historical perspective, Elkin and

Handel (1978) defined family as “the first unit with which
children have a continuous contact
and the first context in which socialization patterns develop”
(p.118). The historical notion of
the traditional family included “married partners and children
residing in a household.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective acknowledges that family
structures can vary and offers
the following definitions of family:
1. A traditional “nuclear family” of two parents and their
children, and where the par-
ents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their
children;
2. An extended-kin model of family made up of a community of
parents, siblings,
grandparents and other relatives which should be recognized as
a primary family,
even if the blood-ties are not as strong as in a nuclear family;
and
3. An individualist model where family members are
autonomous and individuality
should be respected (Dolgin, 2002).
And according to the U.S. Census Bureau,
T h e e v O L v I n g F a m I L y : M E E T T O D D A n D
S H A R O n
Family composition and roles change over one’s lifespan.
During infancy and the early
years of child development, individuals are typically cared for
by their family. As individu-
als age and maturation occurs, the family composition changes,

adapts, or is intentionally
modified. As unique as the individuals who comprise today’s
families are, so too are the
structures and processes by which families exist. In this
chapter, we will follow Todd and
Sharon as they experience the evolution of family. As you read
these features, consider how
external influences have shaped your life, expectations, and
definition of family.
Todd
After Todd’s parents divorced, their shared custody agreement
determined that he would
spend four days of the week at his mother’s home with her new
husband and his three chil-
dren from a previous relationship, and three days, including
weekends, with his father. The
split was originally amicable until Todd’s mother remarried. His
parents worked very hard
to reassure Todd that their divorce had nothing to do with him
and that for the most part
everything else would remain the same. Todd remained active in
the extracurricular activ-
ities he had always participated in since childhood, and stayed
at his mother’s house four
out of five weekdays so that he could remain at his current high
school for his Junior and
Senior years. While Todd was typically an A and B student, his
grades declined due to the
added family stress he experienced before, during, and after his
parents’ divorce. Todd’s
parents send him to a therapist once a week for added support.
Through conversations
with Todd, his therapist quickly noticed that Monday mornings
seemed to be a difficult
time for Todd. She noted that while Todd’s time at his mother’s

house included supervised
activities with the family, his father’s efforts to provide
financial support left little time for
leisure activities.
Sharon
Sharon’s parents truly believed in family first, so when her
paternal grandfather passed
away and her grandmother’s health began to decline, Sharon’s
family quickly relocated to
her father’s hometown to be closer to her ailing grandmother.
Sharon’s mother, a teaching
assistant, quickly found work with a child care program in the
area and her father trans-
ferred to his company’s local office. In an effort to maintain a
sense of normalcy, the fam-
ily decided to move into a small rental home near Sharon’s
grandmother. After Sharon’s
mother was laid off in a reduction in force, her parents found it
difficult to maintain the
mortgage on both her grandmother’s home, which had been in
the family for several gener-
ations, and on their rental home. Eventually, Sharon’s family
moved into her grandmother’s
home. Sharon quickly became the primary caregiver for her
grandmother and younger sis-
ter, as her mother worked with a temp agency and her father
worked overtime in an effort
to maintain the middle-class lifestyle to which their family had
become accustomed.
1. How does Todd’s family composition differ from Sharon’s?
2. What do you think are the anticipated challenges and benefits
of each family’s

composition?
A family includes a householder and one or more people living
in the same
household who are related to the householder by birth,
marriage, or adoption.
All people in a household who are related to the householder are
regarded
as members of his or her family. A family household may
contain people not
related to the householder, but those people are not included as
part of the
householder’s family in census tabulations. (2001, p. A-1)
As illustrated by the many definitions of “family,” there are a
variety of family types in contem-
porary society. As you venture into the field of family behavior
and dynamics, you must be
conscious of how you interact with children and families. One
way to do this is to be culturally
responsive and acknowledge and respect the uniqueness of each
family. Being culturally
responsive means that you affirm the cultures of the children
and families with whom you
work, and that you view their cultures and experiences as
strengths” (Gollnick & Chinn, 2009).
We will discuss cultural responsiveness from various
perspectives throughout this text.

Family Structures and Family Functions
There is no such thing as a “typical” or “normal” family
composition in contemporary society.
Family structures, or kinds of family configurations, can
include, but are not limited to:
• Adoptive families
• Blended families
• Extended families
• Families of divorce
• Foster families
• nuclear families
• Single parent families by choice
• Single parent families by situation
• Same sex families
• Separated families
• Transitioning families
We will discuss family structures more in Chapter 2; however,
all families, regardless of their
structure, have a function. Family functions are the essential
tasks that all families perform
to meet the essential needs of the children and other family
members. According to Berger
(2011), these include:
• Meeting the physical needs of children. Families provide
shelter, food, clothes, and
medical care.
• Encouraging learning. Schools cannot succeed without
family support, collaboration,
and school-family communication.
P a U S e a n D R e F l e c t: W H O D O Y O U C O n S I D

E R F A M I l Y ?
Take a moment to reflect on the way you would have defined
your family as a nine year old.
Reflection Questions
1. Who were the members of your family?
2. Were these individuals genetically related to you?
3. now consider your current definition of family. How has this
definition changed
over time?
• Contributing to the development of self-esteem. Families
need to help their children
feel competent, loved, and appreciated. We will examine the
developmental process
of self-esteem more closely in Chapters 2 and 3.
• Providing harmony, stability, and consistency. Children
need to feel psychologically
and physically safe at home; they need to feel protected and
experience a predictable
environment.
Families and parents do not exist in a vacuum; they reflect and
contribute to the cultures and
societies from which they come. As we will see later in this
chapter and throughout the book,
societal, historical, and cultural forces significantly impact

contemporary families (Socha &
Stamp, 2009).
The lives of children are heavily dependent on their caregivers’
choices, choices which are in
turn influenced by their caregivers’ family, community, and
cultural norms. Cultural norms
are customs and rules that guide the behaviors, expectations,
and responses of a group. They
can provide insight into how an individual will respond when
becoming a parent or caregiver
and dictate appropriate reproductive patterns, caregiving
practices, and familial roles, all of
which affect the developing child. For some, the decision to
become a parent is a conscious
one based on careful planning and consideration; for others, this
decision may be unplanned.
Regardless, families have a function and a direct effect on the
development and behavior of
the children within them.
The way in which families function has been viewed as one of
the greatest predictors of a
child’s psychological well-being. For emotional well-being,
infants and toddlers need sensi-
tive, responsive adult caregivers. They need warm, caring adults
who are able to form endur-
ing relationships (Honig, 2002). An infant’s survival is
dependent upon the willingness of oth-
ers to provide for his or her primary needs. When caregivers are
responsive, children learn to
trust those around them. “Infants are ready from birth to
connect emotionally, interact, and
start relationships with their primary caregivers” (Freeney,
Galper, & Seefeldt, 2009, p. 60).
The individuals that comprise a family provide the first

relationships that a child will experi-
ence. It is from these relationships that children develop their
expectations for the future.
Family Systems Theory, discussed in the next section, is one of
the most common frameworks
in which to view how families function.
the Family Systems theory
According to Turner and Welch (2012), “The manner in which
parents interact with and
guide their children influences the child’s development in more
ways than are immediately
visible” (p.30). With this in mind, professionals must seek to
understand the children within
the context of their families and communities. Family instability
is commonly associated with
the inability to complete necessary family tasks, and when
families function ineffectively or
are not able to fulfill their family tasks, the results can affect
the larger community. According
to Robles de Melendez and Beck (2010), there are six key tasks
that effective families provide:
• Basic needs
• Socialization tasks
• Emotional support and spirituality
• Economic tasks
• Educational tasks
• Crisis management tasks

Dr. Murray Bowen’s Family Systems theory, developed in the
1950s, is a theoretical frame-
work that focuses on universal characteristics found among
families (boundaries, roles, rules,
hierarchy, climate, and equilibrium). It views families in the
context of interconnected and
interdependent individuals by examining each individual family
member’s influence on each
other in predictable, consistent ways, with an emphasis on
family dynamics and communica-
tion styles. The individuals that comprise the system are a
collection of friends, coworkers, or
family members. The primary focus is the dynamic of the group
rather than the individuals
who are a part of the group. like a well-oiled machine, a family
system is a cohesive unit in
which each member is affected by others in the system. If the
family system is destabilized by
the actions or decisions of one member,
the remaining parts of the system must
adapt. Family Systems Theory is com-
monly viewed from two perspectives:
family composition and family process
(Mclanahan & Sandefur, 1994).
The family composition perspective
examines the impact of the family struc-
ture and suggests that two-parent, intact
families are optimal for a child’s develop-
ment. Proponents of this approach argue
the benefits of two biological parents and
the social capital the two parents can
provide. Social capital is considered the
emotional, economic, and educational

support that famlies provide (Mclanahan
and Sandefur, 1994). For example, when
children live with both biological parents,
they are said to benefit from the ability to interact with and
learn from two knowledgable
adults who are invested in the wellbeing of their children. The
biological parents in an intact
family are thought to be fully invested in the successful
outcomes of their children and thus
are likely to provide the necessary sup-
port associated with positive outcomes
Family process researchers, on the other
hand, support the position that the pro-
cess of the family can mitigate the impact
of the family structure, focusing on the
quality of the parent-child relationships
within each family configuration (Acock &
Demo, 1994). In other words, unlike the
family compostion belief, the family pro-
cess perspective supports the belief that
social capital does not have to come from
both biological parents, but can be pro-
vided by another individual, including a
single parent. The value is perceived to be
in the quality of the adult interaction
rather than in the quantity (Mclanahan &
Sandefur, 1994).
monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ According to the family composition perspective,
children raised by two biological parents benefit

from a greater amount of social capital than other
family systems.
David Sacks/Digital Vision/Thinkstock
ሁ According to family process perspective, non-
biological and single-parent families can create just
as supportive environments as biological, two-
parent families; in some cases they can be more
supportive.
T h e e v O L v I n g F a m I L y : T O D D A n D S H A R O
n
A S A C O U P l E
Sharon and Todd attend the same high school and saw one
another in the hallways numer-
ous times. While at first glance the two seemed to have little in
common, their platonic
friendship became romantic. However, they were concerned
about the interracial nature of
their relationship (Sharon is Black and Todd is White).
Interracial dating was not common
in their community, so they worked diligently to keep their
relationship a secret. Sharon
assumed that her parents would not approve of her relationship
with Todd based on con-
versations she had overhead about the contentious racial climate
in their community, while
Todd avoided most conversation with his mother and rarely saw
his father.
In an attempt to escape the stress of dating in secret, which they
had been doing for a year,
Sharon and Todd decide they will move into a small apartment
together their senior year
of high school. While their friends accepted this decision as the

“next step” to their rela-
tionship, they were very apprehensive about telling their
parents. When Sharon formally
introduced Todd to her family and informed them of their plan
to move in together, her
parents were less than pleased with her decision to cohabit. Yet
they were also relieved
when Sharon agreed to remain close to the family home to
continue caring for her sister
and grandmother while she completed high school. She also
agreed to attend classes at the
local university after graduation.
When Todd mentioned his plans to move in with Sharon and get
a full-time job after high
school, rather than go on to college, his mother expressed her
disappointment and ended
their rare conversations. Todd’s father initially appeared to
accept Sharon. However, he
later expressed concern about Todd’s well-being given the
racial tension in the area and
predicted that neither of them would graduate high school.
1. How has the proposal of moving in together changed Todd’s
and Sharon’s family
structures and functions?
2. Is the Family Systems Theory applicable to this scenario? If
so, how?

Section 1.2Historical Influences on Family Development
1.2 Historical Influences on Family Development
To better understand the modern family, it is important to
consider the cultural and economic
events that have modified it over the course of time. These
events impact the way families
function and also shape the social identity of the individuals
within the family. Social identity
is the way in which individuals view themselves, how they
interact with others, and how they
live their lives. Because social identity is influenced by both
time and context, it is in a con-
stant state of flux. For example, the history of the American
family, as well as in most devel-
oped nations, can be described in three economic eras:
agricultural, industrial, and service.
The agricultural era (1500 to 1800)
This era reflects a historical period in which most people
survived on income earned from
agricultural work or farming land. While by present day
standards these individuals were
primarily self-employed, their wages were not significant. Most
families during this period
grew or made many of the items they needed for daily living
and bartered for items they could
Dr. Murray Bowen’s Family Systems theory, developed in the
1950s, is a theoretical frame-
work that focuses on universal characteristics found among
families (boundaries, roles, rules,
hierarchy, climate, and equilibrium). It views families in the
context of interconnected and
interdependent individuals by examining each individual family
member’s influence on each

other in predictable, consistent ways, with an emphasis on
family dynamics and communica-
tion styles. The individuals that comprise the system are a
collection of friends, coworkers, or
family members. The primary focus is the dynamic of the group
rather than the individuals
who are a part of the group. like a well-oiled machine, a family
system is a cohesive unit in
which each member is affected by others in the system. If the
family system is destabilized by
the actions or decisions of one member,
the remaining parts of the system must
adapt. Family Systems Theory is com-
monly viewed from two perspectives:
family composition and family process
The family composition perspective
examines the impact of the family struc-
ture and suggests that two-parent, intact
families are optimal for a child’s develop-
ment. Proponents of this approach argue
the benefits of two biological parents and
the social capital the two parents can
provide. Social capital is considered the
emotional, economic, and educational
support that famlies provide (Mclanahan
and Sandefur, 1994). For example, when
children live with both biological parents,
they are said to benefit from the ability to interact with and
learn from two knowledgable
adults who are invested in the wellbeing of their children. The
biological parents in an intact
family are thought to be fully invested in the successful

outcomes of their children and thus
are likely to provide the necessary sup-
port associated with positive outcomes
Family process researchers, on the other
hand, support the position that the pro-
cess of the family can mitigate the impact
of the family structure, focusing on the
quality of the parent-child relationships
within each family configuration (Acock &
Demo, 1994). In other words, unlike the
family compostion belief, the family pro-
cess perspective supports the belief that
both biological parents, but can be pro-
vided by another individual, including a
single parent. The value is perceived to be
in the quality of the adult interaction
rather than in the quantity (Mclanahan &
Sandefur, 1994).
ሁ According to the family composition perspective,
children raised by two biological parents benefit
from a greater amount of social capital than other
family systems.
ሁ According to family process perspective, non-
biological and single-parent families can create just
as supportive environments as biological, two-
parent families; in some cases they can be more

supportive.
n
A S A C O U P l E
Sharon and Todd attend the same high school and saw one
another in the hallways numer-
ous times. While at first glance the two seemed to have little in
common, their platonic
friendship became romantic. However, they were concerned
about the interracial nature of
their relationship (Sharon is Black and Todd is White).
Interracial dating was not common
in their community, so they worked diligently to keep their
relationship a secret. Sharon
assumed that her parents would not approve of her relationship
with Todd based on con-
versations she had overhead about the contentious racial climate
in their community, while
Todd avoided most conversation with his mother and rarely saw
his father.
In an attempt to escape the stress of dating in secret, which they
had been doing for a year,
Sharon and Todd decide they will move into a small apartment
together their senior year
of high school. While their friends accepted this decision as the
“next step” to their rela-
tionship, they were very apprehensive about telling their
parents. When Sharon formally
introduced Todd to her family and informed them of their plan
to move in together, her
parents were less than pleased with her decision to cohabit. Yet
they were also relieved
when Sharon agreed to remain close to the family home to
continue caring for her sister

and grandmother while she completed high school. She also
agreed to attend classes at the
local university after graduation.
When Todd mentioned his plans to move in with Sharon and get
a full-time job after high
school, rather than go on to college, his mother expressed her
disappointment and ended
their rare conversations. Todd’s father initially appeared to
accept Sharon. However, he
later expressed concern about Todd’s well-being given the
racial tension in the area and
predicted that neither of them would graduate high school.
1. How has the proposal of moving in together changed Todd’s
and Sharon’s family
structures and functions?
2. Is the Family Systems Theory applicable to this scenario? If
so, how?
Section 1.2Historical Influences on Family Development
not produce. Individuals were valued for their economic
contributions, and while women had
little legal power, many men sought skilled women who could
contribute as co-providers to
the household’s ability to remain self-sufficient.
The Industrial era (about 1800 to 1970)

Propelled by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and a number
of advances in technology and
medicine, the United States experienced its own era of
industrialization. During this time,
society saw a reduction in infant mortality as life expectancy
increased. As industry grew,
families and residential patterns shifted. Gains from farm work
were replaced with wages
earned from industrial jobs as families relocated from rural
living arrangements to the more
common urban settings of today. In many cases, mandatory
public school systems were devel-
oped and child labor laws passed to prevent children’s exposure
to the harsh working condi-
tions familiar to most industrial workers.
In the United States, racial and ethnic
demographics became increasingly more
diverse during this era as a result of the
Mexican-American war (1848), the Civil
War and the legal end of slavery (1860),
the Spanish-American War (1898), and
waves of immigration (mid-1800s to early
1920s). Despite the legal end of slavery
in 1860, legal segregation occurred for
another century.
The Service era (1970s
to Present)
As indicated by the name, during the Ser-
vice Era employment patterns shifted
from industrial to service-sector jobs (i.e.
retail, banking, policing etc.). Influenced
by several economic and political events,
these types of jobs increased wages from
previous eras and sparked an increase

of women in the work force. With the
return to a co-provider structure, known
today as dual-income families, house-
hold incomes increased. The increase
of women in the workforce continues to
impact family structures and fuel changes
in traditional domestic roles.
Everett Collection/Everett Collection/Superstock
ሁ Scenes such as this one were not uncommon
before the passage of child labor laws restricted the
age of child workers as well as the conditions under
which they might be employed.
Section 1.3Changes in the Family
1.3 changes in the Family
According to Donald J. Hernandez, Chief of the Marriage and
Family Statistic branch of the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, “never during the past half century were
a majority of children born
into ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ families” (1995). Hernandez analyzed
the impact of the three eras
discussed in the previous section (agricultural, industrial,
service) on the American family.
Hernandez describes at least five major revolutions of family
structures (Feldman, 2003).
These revolutions are:
1. 1800s: An increase in non-farm work by fathers

2. 1930s: A decrease in family size
3. 1870–1930: An increase in school attendance
4. 1960s: An increase in women entering the workforce
5. 1960s: An increase in one-parent, mother-only families
Hernandez attributes the first revolution to the rise of industrial
work by fathers, a shift from
the large farm families of the mid-1800s. During this time
families consisting of a mother,
father, and multiple children worked daily on the farm to
support themselves. This revolution
n
S T A R T A F A M I l Y
Determined to prove their naysayers wrong, Sharon and Todd
settled into their small
home and worked together to build a better life than each felt
they had in their parents’
homes. Sharon fulfilled her promise and continued to assist her
family while going to
school and working part time to help Todd with their household
bills. Todd graduated with
honors and accepted a lucrative part-time job with the city in
hopes of obtaining a full-time
city job in the near future. Sharon and Todd agreed that while
the job was too good to pass
up, Todd would take night classes and obtain the necessary
credential for a management
position with the city.
When Sharon was ten months away from graduating with a
degree in early childhood
education, she learned she was pregnant and would give birth
just before graduation.
Todd remained a part-time worker with the city where both his

hours and compensation
increased. The two vowed to work hard to provide for their baby
together, and while the
idea of marriage had never been an issue for the two of them,
they did not want to com-
pound two life-changing events. Sharon’s grandmother passed
away one week before the
birth of Sharon’s daughter, Maia. While Sharon and Todd’s
families lived in the same city,
their interactions were rare, yet Maia’s birth was a reminder
that they were now family.
These two once different families now shared a common goal:
to love, nurture, and protect
the next generation.
1. How do you think the birth of Maia will influence their
family functions?
2. How might Todd and Sharon’s family circumstances have
differed had they lived in one
of the previous historical eras discussed in this section?
forever changed the parental role of the family, with fathers
now earning an income outside of
the home while many mothers became homemakers responsible
for childrearing and domes-
tic duties. This change in parental roles contributed to the
second revolution, a decrease in

family size.
As fathers struggled to support their previously large families
with wages from work out-
side the home, the traditional family decreased from eight or
more children to two or three
(Feldman, 2003). The third revolution increased the rate of
schooling for children, as moth-
ers became homemakers and fathers made a living outside the
home. Additional revolutions
involved women entering the workforce and the increase of one
parent, mother only families
in the 1960s.
not only has family structure gone through revolutions, but also
the ideal family size has
changed over time. In general, families in the United States are
smaller today than they were
one hundred years ago, and families in developed societies tend
to be much smaller than in
developing societies (Trawick-Smith, 2014).
As indicated in Figure 1.1, between 1960 and 2000, the number
of married couples with chil-
dren decreased, while other family structures increased.
Figure 1.1: Proportions of U.S. household types, 1960–2000
100
80
60
40

20
0
1960 1970
P
er
ce
nt
o
f
ho
us
eh
o
ld
s
1980 1990 2000
Family households Nonfamily households
Other nonfamily
Women living alone
Men living alone
Married couples without children
Married couples with children

f01.01
Other families
without children
Other families with children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, March supplements of the Current
Population Surveys, 1960 to 2000
Marital Instability and cohabitation
Past revolutions in family structure mean that today there are
more unmarried mothers lead-
ing families, as well as unmarried couples living together. In
the 1700s and 1800s, women mar-
ried and typically started their families in their late teen years.
However, by the 1970s, divorce
rates and births to unmarried women increased. The reasons for
these changes in the ‘60s and
‘70s include real wages increasing for women and decreasing
for men; a weakened economy;
women joining the workforce due to the downturn in the
economy; and women gaining access
to legal rights, education, birth control, and paid work
(Mclanahan & Casper, 2001).
Between 1970 and 1999, the percentage of women aged 40 to 44
who were married declined

from 82% to 64%. Despite this decrease in marriage rates
among women, cohabitation rates
increased. Cohabitation is defined as a living arrangement in
which an unmarried couple
shares a household. Many individuals view cohabitation as a
step after dating yet before
marriage (for those who do marry) (Turner & Welch, 2012).
This also includes unmarried,
blended families. According to Child Trends, more than two-
thirds of all couples who married
for the first time previously cohabited. In 2006, there were 5.5
million unmarried hetero-
sexual partner households and 5.3 % of all children under the
age of 18 in the U.S. lived in this
family structure (Child Trends, 2014).
Social Changes and Trends
In addition to the many behavioral and role changes that have
occurred since the 1960s,
numerous family-related social changes and trends have
influenced how we define family.
For example, today 51% of all U.S. adults over 18 years of age
are married; in 1960, that figure
was 72%. In 2012, 40.7% of children born in the U.S. were born
to unmarried mothers (Pew
Research Center, 2014b). Today, 68% of children live with two
parents—either biological or
stepparents—and 28% in one-parent homes (Federal Interagency
Forum on Child and Family
Statistics 2012).
Challenging Traditional
Gender Roles
All of the changes to the idea of family
have led to evolutions in traditional gen-
der roles. Balancing family and work

responsibilities often requires that two-
parent families challenge traditional gen-
der roles and learn ways to be more flexi-
ble and efficient. However, many parents
struggle to change their accustomed roles,
partly because they tend to parent like
their own parents did, with strictly sepa-
rate spheres for husband and wife (Fagan
& Palm, 2004; Gary, 1987; Palm & Palkov-
itz, 1988; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; Tur-
biville & Marques, 2001). Also, many con-
temporary immigrants come from societies where gender roles
and expectations are more
strict or inflexible than in other countries (Roopnarine, Shin, &
lewis, 2001).
Jeff Randall/Digital Vision/Thinkstock
ሁ More and more families are beginning to
challenge traditional gender roles, although there is
still a long way to go before equality is reached.
Although gender is an important factor in determining the
distribution of household and child
care responsibilities in many families, research suggests that
this picture is slowly chang-
ing (Coltrane, 2000). In one study, researchers found that from
1989 to 1999, men slightly
increased their performance of housework and in households

with more balanced sharing of
labor, women experienced less depression and higher overall
marital satisfaction. However,
even though men’s contributions increased, women still
performed at least twice as much
routine housework as men (Coltrane, 2000). Thus, parents and
caregivers need to continually
struggle against the temptation to fall into the traditional
gender-role trap when considering
duties, responsibilities, and job allocation in caring for their
children and home.
One approach to addressing gender role changes in
contemporary families is for each parent
or caregiver to acknowledge, respect, and appreciate all
contributions to the family as equal,
regardless of the type of job each individual does and whether it
is paid or unpaid (e.g., career,
job, caring for the children, cooking, repairing the home,
attending PTA meetings, or doing
housework). Taking an egalitarian approach does not mean that
each parent or caregiver
should not have clear roles and responsibilities or that every
task is necessarily negotiable;
what it does mean is that all activities involving the family are
seen as equally valid, regardless
of who does them (Coltrane, 2000). This sense of equality is, of
course, very challenging to
achieve, as many have learned to value punctuality, discipline,
and work requirements more
highly than flexibility, child rearing, healthy give-and-take with
one’s spouse, and home-
related tasks.
n

A S P A R E n T S
After their daughter was born, Todd and Sharon married and
quickly accepted non-
traditional family roles. On a middle working class salary,
Sharon and Todd continued to
provide for Maia in a way very different than their own parents
had provided for them.
Todd felt that his part-time status allowed him to be an active
emotional provider for his
daughter. He enjoyed his daily interactions with Maia and
prided himself on being one of
only a few fathers actively involved in her preschool. Todd
enjoyed fatherhood, and his par-
enting style was one of the reasons Sharon agreed that they
should plan to have another
baby. As a teacher, Sharon was aware of the benefits of
effectively planning the birth of
their baby to coincide with a school break to reduce the amount
of maternity leave she
would have to take. Todd did not receive paternity leave;
however, he was able to take time
off to assist Sharon with her recovery and to help take care of
their new child.
now five years old, Maia attends a bilingual French
International school for the full school
day until Todd picks her up and takes her home on his way to
night classes. Maia and her
one-year-old brother, Jordan, are often cared for by Todd’s
mother in the family’s home.
1. Does Todd’s active paternal role reflect your cultural norms?
Explain.
2. What influence do you believe Maia’s family will have on her
development and

understanding of family?
Summary and Resources
chapter Summary
This chapter provided a foundation for many of the concepts
you will encounter throughout
this book. We began by defining family and exploring how
families function. We then cov-
ered key eras in history that influenced how families work. We
also discussed some signficant
changes to the idea of family, including the changing nature of
family structures and the evolv-
ing roles within families. In the next chapter, we will take a
closer look at some of the common
family structures you might encounter in your work with
children and families.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. As we discussed in this chapter, the family has undergone
some profound changes
in modern times. Which changes, if any, do you think have had
positive impacts on
families? Which, if any, do you think have had negative impacts
on families? Explain.
2. Explain why it can be difficult to define family. Of the
definitions we discussed in this
chapter, which do you think is the most accurate? Why?

3. What do you think are the most important family functions?
Are there any that were
not included in this chapter?
4. What do you think is essential for healthy family
functioning?
Key terms
cohabitation A living arrangement in which
an unmarried couple shares a household; in
many states, this is not a legally recognized
partnership.
cultural norms Informal cultural cus-
toms and rules that guide the behaviors,
expectations, and response of the group.
These norms may change or be modified.
culturally responsive An approach to
working with children and families that
affirms their cultures and views their cul-
tures and experiences as strengths.
P a U S e a n D R e F l e c t: F A M I l I E S I n T H E M E
D I A
For many, the 1970 television sitcom The Brady Bunch served
as an introduction to a family
structure known as the blended family, as two previously
married individuals with chil-
dren combining their two families remained the story line for
the show’s duration. In 1984,
The Cosby Show portrayed a family configuration similar to the
previous iconic 1950s tele-
vision family of Ozzie and Harriet with a noticeable difference

in the ethnicity of the main
characters.
Both The Brady Bunch and The Cosby Show were popular
television shows of their respec-
tive times; however, neither reflected the common family
configuration of their viewers.
While television shows can provide insight into common
cultural norms, it is important to
note the difference between entertainment and educational
information.
1. Do you believe today’s reality television accurately portrays
the daily lives of the major-
ity of Americans?
2. When seeking information about the children you work with,
what do you think should
be the primary source of information?
family composition The makeup of fam-
ily structures; the specific individuals who
comprise a family.
family composition perspective A view of
family systems that examines the impact of
the family structure. This perspective sug-

gests that two-parent, intact families are
optimal for a child’s development.
family functions The essential tasks that all
families perform, regardless of the family’s
structure, to meet the essential needs of the
children and other family members.
family process perspective A view of fam-
ily systems that examines the quality of the
adult interaction rather than the quantity.
This perspective supports the belief that
both biological parents, but can be provided
by another individual, including a single
parent.
family structures The different kinds of
family configurations, such as two-parent
families, single-parent families, and grand-
parents raising grandchildren.
Family Systems theory A theoretical
framework that focuses on universal charac-
teristics (boundaries, roles, rules, hierarchy,
climate, and equilibrium) found among fami-
lies. It examines the individual family mem-
bers’ influence on each other in predictable,
consistent ways, with an emphasis on family
dynamics and communication styles.
social capital The emotional, economic, and
educational support that families provide to
their members.
social identity The way in which individu-

als view themselves, how they interact with
others, and how they live their lives.
additional Resources
U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/
The U.S. Census provides many statistics about the state and
nature of American fami-
lies. This website is a good place to start when you are
researching facts about American
families.
Children’s Defense Fund: http://www.childrensdefense.org/
The Children’s Defense Fund is a prominent advocacy and
research group that advocates on
behalf of children. It is a good place to find resources for
children and families in need.
Note: 2 pages discussion and later two responses followed.
follow the instruction fo r the assignment.
For this forum, access www.cartercenter.org. Once on the
Internet site:
1. Click on Peace Programs (Top Bar)
2. Click on Conflict Resolution Programs (Top Bar)
3. On the right bar, under Conflict Resolution Program Links,
click on Activities by Countries
Within this site, there are 11 country or region case studies in
which the Carter Center has served as a mediator. Selecting one

country, provide a brief overview of the conflict resolution
situation. Additionally integrate the review with the assigned
readings for Week 3. Your work is to be posted in the Forum.
Note: Please observe postings by your classmates as not to
duplicate case studies.
CO-3: Assess distinct approaches to conflict resolution and
mediation
Conflict Resolution & Mediation
CO-3: Assess distinct approaches to conflict resolution and
mediation.
Ramsbotham, Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Chapters 6
& 7
Najafbagy, Reza. 2008. "Problems of Effective Cross-
Cultural Communication and Conflict Resolution." Lessons
Week 3
Guest Website: Access www.usip.org
www.crisisgroup.org
www.cartercenter.org
Forum: Seminar Discussion
2Today’s Family Structures
Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the
following:
ሁ Describe various characteristics of single-parent families
ሁ Explain some of the unique challenges facing both caregivers
and children in foster families.
ሁ Discuss some of the issues faced by adoptive families.
ሁ Examine grandparent-headed families and their unique
challenges.
ሁ Explore characteristics of teen-parent families, their
challenges, and ways that schools and commu-
nities can support them.
ሁ Describe the characteristics of cohabiting couples and their
children.
ሁ Examine gay and lesbian families, and lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) children, focus-
ing on their particular challenges, dynamics, and ways that
children’s and other programs can work
with and support these families.
Introduction
Introduction
While researchers have historically viewed the two-parent,
biological family as the norm in
U.S. society, there have always been many other family
structures and types in this country,
to some degree. Historically, many American families,

especially immigrant families, were
comprised of large and extended families (Wardle, 2013b).
After the Civil War (1861–1865),
many families consisted of single-parent female-headed
households due to the levels of casu-
alties of men in war. Some family structures have only recently
been acknowledged, such as
those headed by same-sex couples. For a variety of reasons, the
portion of the population
in other types of family structures such as blended families,
dual-custody divorced families,
grandparents raising grandchildren, teen parents, and single-
parent families has dramatically
increased over the past several decades.
The discussion of various family structures in this chapter is not
an attempt to compare them
to the traditional nuclear family (two parents raising their
biological or adoptive children)—
what is termed a deficit view of the family. A deficit view is
generally very limited in scope,
as it compares a construct or concept (in this case, families)
with an ideal and in turn may
perceive ways in which it differs from the ideal as deficiencies.
The aim of discussing various
family structures, then, is to provide professionals working with
families a firm understand-
ing of these family structures and acknowledge that each has
unique needs. This awareness
can improve professionals’ ability to provide support, advice,
and if necessary, access to out-
side resources.
Central to our discussions of various family structures is a
concept known as family well-
being. Family well-being covers a wide variety of factors

including the overall physical and
psychological health of a family, high levels of self-esteem, a
sense of power, and an internal
locus of control. Internal locus of control is a sense that the
outcome of an action is the
result of one’s own abilities and efforts, as opposed to external
locus of control, in which
a person perceives the outcome of an action as the result of
luck, chance, or powerful forces
beyond his or her control (Crandell, Crandell, & Zanden, 2012).
Family well-being is also
dependent on good physical and mental health, few behavior
and discipline problems with
children, strong social support, high marital quality and
stability (in two-parent families),
and positive parent–child relationships (Barnett, 2008; Conger
& Donnellan, 2007; McLoyd,
Aikens, & Burton, 2006).
In the historical view of family, a mother’s occupation was
often housewife or homemaker,
as she stayed home to care for the children and the home while
the father worked outside
of the home, providing for the family’s financial needs.
However, in most families today, both
parents find it necessary to work outside the home, either full or
part time in order to ensure
the health and well-being of the family (Pew Research Center,
2013).
The employment of family members is central to the role of
parenting and the health and
well-being of a family. The social and economic standing of a
family—also known as socio-
economic status (SES)—is an indicator of a family’s ability to
provide for the basic needs of

all of its members. The SES level, especially a low SES, can
have a major impact on family well-
being and children’s healthy growth, development, and learning
(Rothstein, 2008).
Section 2.1Single-Parent Families
one major contributor to a low SES and household poverty is
single parenthood, which is the
topic of the next section. Because the proportion of single
parents differs greatly by race and
ethnicity, this factor influences the statistics regarding family
income by race and ethnicity
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2014).
2.1 single-Parent Families
In the United States, the number of single parents continues to
rise (see Figure 2.1) (U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau, 2011a). This is the result of an increase in the
divorce rate during the latter part
of the 20th century, which peaked around 1980 (see Figure 2.2),
an increase in the number of
women having children without getting married, and a societal
acceptance of women having
children out of wedlock (Fagan, 2014; Solomon-Fears, 2008).
Nearly 30% of families in the
United States are headed by a single parent (Barton & Coley,
2007). Single-parent homes
consist of one parent with dependent children living in the same
household, and can be

headed by a mother or a father (Turner & Welch, 2012). often
these families receive support
from the missing parent (usually the father), and from
grandparents of one or both biological
parents. By far the highest number of single-parent families is
headed by mothers; according
to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 80% of the nearly 13
million children living with a single
parent live with their mother (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a;
Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013).
Figure 2.1: Living arrangements of children under age 18,
1970–2014
Note: Children living with two married parents may be living
with biological, adoptive, or non-biological parents. Children
living with mother only or father
only may also be living with the parent’s unmarried partner.
Source: Figure 1, p. 3. Child Trends Data Bank. Family
Structure: Indicators on Children and Youth. March 2015.
http://www.childtrends.org/
?indicators=family-structure
Living with two married parents
Mother only
Father only
Living with no parent
1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
2002 2006 2010 2014
0

20
40
60
80
100
8.0
87.7 85.4
76.7
72.5
68.0 69.1 67.3
64.1
64.4
10.7
18.0
21.6 24.0 24.2
24.4
23.6
3.9
3.8
22.4
3.2

1.1
P
er
ce
nt
f02.01
Year
Figure 2.2: U.S. divorce rate, 1940–2011
*Beginning in 1998, the divorce rate excludes data from various
states; the divorce rate for years 2005–2007 is based on
provisional data and includes
non-residents.
Source: Statistical Abstracts of the United States, NCHS,
National Vital Statistics Reports.
According the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly one-half of all
single-mother families are under eco-
nomic stress. Economic stress can be the product of (a) the
inability to meet financial obliga-
tions, (b) the uncertainty of income sources, (c) the instability
of employment, (d) the inad-
equacy of earnings to meet the family’s basic needs, or a

combination of these factors (Fox &
Bartholomae, 2000).
Single-parent families exist among all racial and ethnic groups
and all economic groups, but
they are much more prevalent among African Americans,
Hispanics, Native Americans, and
low-income groups. (See Figure 2.3 and the feature box The
Evolving Family: Meet Miguel).
In the United States, the highest percentage of single-parent
homes is found among African
Americans, among whom more than 70% of children are born to
a single mother (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010a). Thus, many African American children grow up
in low-income, single female–
headed households. Slightly over 50% of Black and Hispanic
single-parent families live in pov-
erty (less than $16,000 income for a family of two, see Table
2.1) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a;
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Note
that the U.S. Census Bureau and
the U.S. Department of Labor do not count interracial and
multiethnic families, so we are not
including statistics for mixed-race families, even though these
families make up a significant
and growing percentage of families in the United States.
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5

4
4.5
5
5.5
19
40
19
42
19
44
19
46
19
48
19
50
19
52
19
54
19
56
19

58
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19

82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20

06
20
08
20
10
Year
D
iv
o
rc
e
p
er
1
,0
00
m
ar
ri
ed
p
er
so

ns
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011
f02.02
table 2.1: 2014 Poverty guidelines for the 48 contiguous united
states
and the District of Columbia
Persons in family/household* Poverty guideline
1 $11,670
2 15,730
3 19,790
4 23,850
5 27,910
6 31,970
7 36,030
8 40,090
*For families/households with more than eight persons, add

$4,060 for each additional person.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2014
Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/14poverty.cfm
Figure 2.3: Living arrangements of children under age 18 by
race
and Hispanic origin, 2014
Source: Figure 2, p. 4. Child Trends Data Bank. Family
Structure: Indicators on Children and Youth. March 2015.
http://www.childtrends.org/
?indicators=family-structure
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
er
ce
nt
74.5

34.4
15.5
50.8
27.5
9.6
4.3 4.2 3.1 1.7 3.0
6.1 4.4
2.0
57.8
84.6 Non-Hispanic White
Black Hispanic Asian
Living with two
married parents
Mother only Father only Living with no
parent
f02.03
Recently, there has been a marked increase in the number of

women who have never mar-
ried having children (Shattuck & Kreider, 2013) (Figure 2.4).
Further, single-parent homes
resulting from divorce are more prevalent in White, Asian, and
middle-class families, whereas
single parents who have never been married are more common
in Black, Hispanic, and Native
American families (Caumont, 2013; Coleman, Ganong, &
Warzinik, 2007).
Figure 2.4: Percentage of births to unmarried women by race
and
Hispanic origin, 1960–2013
Source: Figure 1, p. 3. Child Trends Data Bank. Births to
Unmarried Women: Indicators on Children and Youth. March,
2015. http://www.childtrends.org/
wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/75_Births_to_Unmarried_Women.pdf
f02.04
Year
Non-Hispanic black
Hispanic
Total
Non-Hispanic white
1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
0
20

40
60
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
o
f
al
l b
ir
th
s 80
100
71.5
57.2
23.6
14.3
10.77.7

5.3
9.5 12.4
29.5
62.0
16.9
36.7
66.7
21.2
43.1
70.7
32.6
22.5
42.5
68.5
29.0
41.0
53.2
72.8
53.2

40.6
29.3
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : M E E T M I G U E L
Miguel is the three-year-old son of Amy, a single mother. When
Miguel was born, Amy was
a teen mother finishing high school. Luckily, the high school
Amy attended had a program
for infants of teen parents, run by the local community college,
where she could leave her
infant for the day while she went to class. Now Amy attends the
same community college
and is studying to become a nurse.
Miguel spends half of the day at a Head Start program. The
other half of the day, he attends
the early childhood program at the community college where
Amy studies and can visit
him between classes. Miguel’s father was in the country
illegally and has since been
deported back to Mexico, where his grandparents still live.
Since he was born, Miguel has struggled to meet developmental
benchmarks. When he was
in the Early Head Start program, the program had him tested,
and he was diagnosed with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and possibly
Asperger’s syndrome (a form
of autism). Now a community agency charged with making sure
children with a disability
receive needed services (Child Find) wants Amy to move him to
the public school’s special
(continued)

T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : M E E T M I G U E L ( c
o n t i n u e d )
education preschool program to receive services for his ADHD
and Asperger’s. But Amy
has a positive history working with Head Start, Miguel likes the
program and his peers,
and Amy enjoys the fact that she can drop in on her son during
the day. Amy believes that
Head Start can provide the direct services that Miguel needs,
but Child Find believes that
the district can do a better job of providing these services in
their preschool.
Amy also wants Miguel to develop knowledge and pride in his
Latino heritage. Because he
has no contact with his father or his father’s family, Amy is
trying to find other solutions to
expose him to his culture and language. His teacher in Head
Start is Latino, as are many of
the families in the local program.
1. If you were working with Amy as a professional, would you
advise her to keep Miguel in
the Head Start program?
2. How would you advise Amy to support Miguel’s ethnic
identity development?
3. What can Amy do to provide appropriate role models for
Miguel?

Single Mothers, Single Fathers
Single parents are more likely to be mothers (84%) than
fathers (16%). Most single parents were married at one
time and are now divorced, separated, or widowed; how-
ever, 34.2% of single mothers and 20% of single fathers
were never married. Most single parents work, either full
or part time—79% of mothers and 90% of fathers (Grall,
2011). Even so, 41% of single mothers live in poverty
compared with only 24% of single fathers (Levine &
Munsch, 2014, p. 502; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b).
Today, more women in the United States are having chil-
dren before they marry, and median age at first birth
(25.7) is lower than median age at first marriage (26.5)
(Klein, 2013). As a result, 40% of births in the United
States in 2010 were to unmarried women (Federal Inter-
agency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2012). By
race, this breaks down as 72.5% of African American
mothers, 53.3% of Hispanic mothers, and 29% of non-
Hispanic White mothers being unmarried at the time of
their child’s birth. Although many of these women may
initially plan to marry the father of their children, after
one year from the birth of the child, only 10% had mar-
ried the child’s father, and only 20% of the fathers had regular
contact with their children
(McLanahan & Carlson, 2004).
Divorce and Children
Divorce is a prime driver of the increase in single-parent
families and blended families. Statis-
tics for divorce in the United States are 40%–50% for first
marriages, 60%–67% for second

Jupiterimages/Digital Vision/Thinkstock
ሁ Statistically, single-parent
families are most likely to consist of
a mother and one or more children.
Recently, there has been a marked increase in the number of
women who have never mar-
ried having children (Shattuck & Kreider, 2013) (Figure 2.4).
Further, single-parent homes
resulting from divorce are more prevalent in White, Asian, and
middle-class families, whereas
single parents who have never been married are more common
in Black, Hispanic, and Native
American families (Caumont, 2013; Coleman, Ganong, &
Warzinik, 2007).
Figure 2.4: Percentage of births to unmarried women by race
and
Hispanic origin, 1960–2013
Source: Figure 1, p. 3. Child Trends Data Bank. Births to
Unmarried Women: Indicators on Children and Youth. March,
2015. http://www.childtrends.org/
wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/75_Births_to_Unmarried_Women.pdf
f02.04
Year
Non-Hispanic black
Hispanic
Total

Non-Hispanic white
1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
0
20
40
60
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
o
f
al
l b
ir
th
s 80
100
71.5

57.2
23.6
14.3
10.77.7
5.3
9.5 12.4
29.5
62.0
16.9
36.7
66.7
21.2
43.1
70.7
32.6
22.5
42.5
68.5
29.0

41.0
53.2
72.8
53.2
40.6
29.3
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : M E E T M I G U E L
Miguel is the three-year-old son of Amy, a single mother. When
Miguel was born, Amy was
a teen mother finishing high school. Luckily, the high school
Amy attended had a program
for infants of teen parents, run by the local community college,
where she could leave her
infant for the day while she went to class. Now Amy attends the
same community college
and is studying to become a nurse.
Miguel spends half of the day at a Head Start program. The
other half of the day, he attends
the early childhood program at the community college where
Amy studies and can visit
him between classes. Miguel’s father was in the country
illegally and has since been
deported back to Mexico, where his grandparents still live.
Since he was born, Miguel has struggled to meet developmental
benchmarks. When he was
in the Early Head Start program, the program had him tested,
and he was diagnosed with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and possibly

Asperger’s syndrome (a form
of autism). Now a community agency charged with making sure
children with a disability
receive needed services (Child Find) wants Amy to move him to
the public school’s special
(continued)
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : M E E T M I G U E L ( c
o n t i n u e d )
education preschool program to receive services for his ADHD
and Asperger’s. But Amy
has a positive history working with Head Start, Miguel likes the
program and his peers,
and Amy enjoys the fact that she can drop in on her son during
the day. Amy believes that
Head Start can provide the direct services that Miguel needs,
but Child Find believes that
the district can do a better job of providing these services in
their preschool.
Amy also wants Miguel to develop knowledge and pride in his
Latino heritage. Because he
has no contact with his father or his father’s family, Amy is
trying to find other solutions to
expose him to his culture and language. His teacher in Head
Start is Latino, as are many of
the families in the local program.
1. If you were working with Amy as a professional, would you
advise her to keep Miguel in
the Head Start program?
2. How would you advise Amy to support Miguel’s ethnic
identity development?

3. What can Amy do to provide appropriate role models for
Miguel?
marriages, and 73%–74% for third mar-
riages (Divorce Statistics, 2012). The
divorce rate in the United States increased
up to the 1980s, then began to decline
after 1980 (partly as a result of fewer peo-
ple getting married in the first place and
the rise of cohabitation; see Figure 2.2)
(Wilcox, 2011). Several factors have been
found to increase the likelihood of divorce,
including low income, having a baby
before marriage, marrying young (at
18–25 years of age), growing up in a
divorced family (Wallerstein & Lewis,
2004), having no religious affiliation, and
being a high school dropout (Wilcox,
2011).
Blended and Stepfamilies
Blended families consist of two adults, the biological children
from a previous earlier mar-
riage of one or both adults, and any children the couple shares
together. Thus, stepparents,
stepchildren, and step siblings may be part of a blended family
(Berger, 2011). Blended fami-
lies are one result of the high U.S. divorce rate (Cherlin, 2010).
Most divorced parents remarry

within a few years (Coleman et al., 2007), and some unmarried
parents also eventually marry
(McLanahan & Carlson, 2004).
Blended families come with their own challenges. Children
especially experience stress as
they go through the breakup of their parents’ marriage (or
relationship, if it is a long-term
cohabiting couple) and then have to negotiate a new set of
family relationships, including
sharing parents and having to accept new half-siblings,
grandparents, and other relatives
(Ganong & Coleman, 2004). Second marriages are more likely
to end in divorce than first mar-
riages, and the addition of children from both marriages
increases that probability. Children
look for stability, consistency, and loyalty as they progress
through their own developmental
transitions. Thus, conflicts between new parents and
stepsiblings can complicate these areas
of growth. Stepfamilies can be particularly difficult when
children feel the relationships with
their biological parents are compromised or when the new
parent introduces new and more
restrictive rules and discipline.
Fuse/Thinkstock
ሁ Divorce is a stressful process for children. The
addition of a new stepparent and new stepsiblings,
as often occurs within a few years of divorce, can
create additional instability and anxiety.
P a u s e a n d R e F l e c t: C o U N S E L I N G B L E N D
E D F A M I L I E S
Watch the video “Blended Families” and the discussion by

family therapists working with
them by visiting the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQfkj5pFQPQ.
1. What are the main challenges that blended families face?
2. What reactions can children have when becoming part of a
blended family?
3. How long does it typically take to successfully “blend”?
4. What are some counseling techniques that work with these
families?
5. What factors can speed up the process, and what factors can
impede it?
Section 2.2Foster Families
2.2 Foster Families
The foster care system was organized as a result of a 1930s
study, conducted by the Uni-
versity of Iowa, evaluating the effects of orphanages on the
development of young children.
The results of the study found that children living in orphanages
were developmentally
delayed compared with same-age children not living in
orphanages (Skeels, Updegraph,
Wellman, & Williams, 1938). Noting these publications, the
U.S. federal government out-
lawed the use of orphanages to care for children in the United
States, organizing instead the
foster care program and adoption system. By 1950, the number
of children in foster care

exceeded those in institutions, and by 1960, those placed for
adoption exceeded those in
orphanages (Barr, 1992).
Foster care allows for the temporary care
of children who have been removed by
the state (into child protective services)
from their biological families. Ideally,
these children will eventually be returned
to their families or be placed for adoption.
Children are removed from their families
for a variety of reasons: abuse or neglect,
or parental illness, incarceration, drug
abuse, or death (American Academy of
Child and Adolescence Psychiatry
[AACAP], 2013). As of September 2012,
there were almost 400,000 children in
foster care in the United States (Adoption
and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System [AFCARS], 2013), with more than
one-fourth of the children in kinship
care, in which a relative (usually the
grandmother) is the caregiver (AFCARS,
2013). It is also estimated that three times as many children are
in unofficial kinship care than
in official kinship care. A relative informally cares for these
children for a period of time rather
than officially entering the foster care system, in which they are
supervised by the family
courts and offered financial and institutional support (Berger,
2011).
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : N E W F o S T E R P A
R E N T S
James was an 11-year-old foster child in Stephanie’s special
education classroom. His father

was in jail for abusing him; his mother was struggling with drug
addiction. He had spent
many years in foster care, and his current foster parents could
no longer care for him.
Stephanie liked James and wondered whether she and her
husband Mark could care for him
temporarily. Their four children were all away at college; they
had extra space in their home
and felt they had ample experience in raising children. Further,
Stephanie was a special edu-
cation teacher, and Mark taught child development classes at a
local community college.
(continued)
BrianAJackson/iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ Many foster children are removed from abusive
homes, and these experiences, combined with other
risk factors, such as income and availability
of education, can lead to difficulties within the
foster family.
Section 2.2Foster Families
Most children in foster care are from low-income families. In
2012, almost half of children enter-
ing foster care were White (44%), 22% were African American,
and 21% were Hispanic of any
race (AFCARS, 2013). A large proportion had suffered from

severe physical, intellectual, and
emotional problems in their biological homes (Pew Commission
on Children in Foster Care,
2004). Foster parents are screened, trained, and supervised by a
public institution (usually an
agency of the city, state, or county government) and are paid to
temporarily care for foster chil-
dren. There are also short-term foster families, who function as
emergency placements, espe-
cially for infants, until suitable kinship or other care can be
arranged. Some families choose to
be a foster-to-adopt placement, where the child can stay
permanently if reunification with the
birth family proves impossible.
In 2012, the average length of stay of a child in foster care was
13.4 months. of the 241,254 chil-
dren who exited foster care that year, 59% were reunited with
parents, primary caregivers, or
went to live with another relative, 21% were adopted, 10% were
emancipated, and 7% went
to live with a guardian (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2013a, pp. 6, 7). Federal law has
been passed to shorten the length of time children spend in
foster care and to maximize fam-
ily stability. It now requires that if a child cannot return to his
or her biological family within
18 months, the child can be put up for adoption (Child Welfare
League of America, n.d.). These
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : N E W F o S T E R P A
R E N T S
( c o n t i n u e d )
Mark agreed they should try to care for James until a permanent
home could be arranged.

The couple contacted the local county agency and began the
process to become foster par-
ents. Although they had anticipated the required series of
background checks and personal
interviews, they were surprised at the number and length of
training sessions they had
to take, especially since they both had advanced college degrees
in special education and
psychology.
once James was placed with Stephanie and Mark, he initially
did quite well. Stephanie took
him with her to school every day. He traveled with the couple to
several places in their
state; when Mark’s parents visited, James got on very well with
Mark’s father, who was an
elementary school teacher.
However, it soon became clear that James had some severe
problems. He had no sense of
social boundaries and would walk up to complete strangers as if
they were old friends. He
also would leave the house without telling anyone and simply
disappear. once, James left
the house early in the morning before Stephanie and Mark were
up. They were rightly con-
cerned that he would come to harm or get lost. Surprisingly, the
agency had not warned the
couple about his running away; now that it was a problem, the
agency did not provide sup-
port other than paying for therapy the couple found. The couple
also discovered that James
was required to have visits with his father now that he was out
of jail. Eventually, the fam-
ily realized they were not equipped to handle James. They also
felt somewhat betrayed by

the agency. So they asked to no longer care for him.
1. Should the agency have informed the couple of James’s
severe behavioral problems
before they committed to care for him?
2. Were Stephanie and Mark naive before they agreed to care
for James?
3. How could the agency have created more trust between
themselves and the foster
parents?
Section 2.3Adoptive Families
reforms were designed to reduce the chance that by the time the
biological parents relinquish
the rights to their child (after repeatedly attempting to comply
with the court’s terms for
reunification), the child will be too old to adopt (Brooks, 2011).
In considering the poor outcomes of many children in foster
care, it is critical to remember
that children in foster care have many risk factors that are not
the result of the foster care
system itself—the family of origin’s low income status, a
history of abuse or neglect, dys-
functional families, and attending low-quality schools and the
negative impact associated
with changing schools frequently. However, it is also clear that

many aspects of the foster
care system need to be improved, for example, training and
supervision, to increase posi-
tive outcomes for foster children. In the U.S. legal system,
biological parents have many
rights, and permanently removing a child from his or her
biological parents is a long, cum-
bersome process that also can produce trauma in the child
(American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 2005).
2.3 adoptive Families
Between 2% and 4 % of children in the United States are
adopted; half by biological relatives
and other relatives, such as stepparents, and half by caretakers
who are not relatives (Brodz-
insky & Pinderhughes, 2002). In the past, most children who
were adopted were born to sin-
gle, unmarried women, but this picture has radically changed
over the last 50 years. Because
of the increased acceptance of unwed motherhood, raising a
child as a single parent, and the
availability of contraception and abortion, many fewer children
are available for domestic
adoption. Now, parents who wish to adopt must consider
transracial adoption (domestic and
foreign), international adoption, children with special needs,
older children, sibling groups,
and other hard-to-place children. Those who adopt within the
United States must compete
with a large pool of prospective parents for the approval of the
available birthmothers.
As for the adopted children, the diversity of adults approved to
adopt has expanded greatly,
and now includes older adults, single parents, gay or lesbian

couples, disabled adults, and
parents with low income. Also, some foster parents who become
attached to their foster chil-
dren are now given more opportunities to adopt them. The
Adoption Promotion Act of 2003
and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 made it eas-
ier to speed the adoption process of foster and other children
and provide these families with
financial support.
P a u s e a n d R e F l e c t: C H I L D R E N I N F o S T E R
C A R E
View the short video produced by AdoptUSKids (an agency of
the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services) which interviews children (now
teens) who have been in the
foster care system for several years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBa9cK52vM.
1. What do you see as the main struggles children in foster care
have to deal with?
2. How have successful placements helped some of the
speakers, both academically and
emotionally?
3. How does being in foster care affect other relationships in
their lives (such as with fam-
ily or other kids at school)?

Open versus Closed adoption
Historically, adoption was kept secret. This approach reflected
long-held beliefs that children
and birthmothers should be protected from the stigma of
illegitimacy. Most adopted children
did not know their birthparents, and some were never told they
were adopted. The belief at
the time was that this secrecy benefited all involved: the
birthparents, the adoptive parents,
and the child. However, this secrecy also meant all involved had
many unanswered questions,
and left adoptive children (and eventually adults) without
important genetic and medical
information (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013b).
Today, most adopted children know they are adopted.
Additionally, many adoptive families
and birth families have contact with one another. According to
research reported by Siegel
and Smith in 2012, U.S. adoption agencies reported that almost
95% of the domestic infant
adoptions were open (2012). Further, in 2009, post-adoption
contact of all adoptive children
in the United States (including those adopted from abroad)
showed that approximately one-
third of the families had contact with birthparents.
Factors that have contributed to this radical shift include the
following:
• A growing awareness of the negative results of secrecy in
the adoption process
• An understanding of the benefits of openness for many

adopted children, birthpar-
ents, and adoptive parents
• Relaxation of state adoption laws and regulations
resulting from the number of adult
adoptees and birthparents who have sought out information
about each other from
adoption agencies
• The increasing use of social media in enabling adopted
persons and birthparents to
find each other fairly easily, resulting in closed adoptions
becoming open, sometimes
with negative results (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2013b)
The type and frequency of contact and communication in
adoptive families are decided by
the parties involved, and fall along a continuum (see Figure
2.5). Note that the frequency
and nature of the contact often change as the child becomes
older and the needs and wishes
of families change. on one end of the continuum is open
adoption, a legal arrangement in
which birthparents and adoptive parents have some form of
initial and/or ongoing, direct
contact and identifying information is shared (Child Welfare
Information Gateway, 2013b).
on the other side of the continuum is confidential or closed
adoption, in which no contact
between birth and adoptive families takes place and no
information is shared. The middle of
the continuum is semi-open or mediated adoption, in which
communication is made through
a third party, such as a case worker or lawyer. Information that

is shared does not include
identifying elements, such as the names and addresses of parties
involved. Both communica-
tion and privacy are provided in semi-open adoption.
Figure 2.5: Continuum of adoption
Source: Child Welfare Information gateway, 2013b. Openness
in Adoption: Building relationships between adoptive and birth
families. Washington, DC: Children’s
Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
https://www.childwelfare.govf02.05
• No contact
• No identifying information
shared
• Indirect contact
• Share nonidentifying information
• Direct communication
• Exchange indentifying
information
Confidential Adoption Semi-Open Adoption (Mediated) Open
Adoption
Regardless of their level of openness,

adoptive parents and birthparents do not
parent their child together; in all cases,
the adoptive parents have the legal rights
and responsibilities to parent the child. In
many situations, the birthmother selects
the adoptive parent(s) through viewing
their portfolio or meeting with them in
person, and then maintains contact after
the adoption. In open adoptions, the
adopted child has varying degrees of con-
tact with the birth family (for example
one-way contact through sending pictures
and information from the adoptive family,
or two-way contact with shared family
get-togethers), depending on the families’
agreement prior to the adoption.
The benefits of open adoption for the
child include the following:
• Developing a sense of connection and belonging with
birthparent(s) throughout
their lives
• Developing a deeper understanding of and connection to
one’s identity, heritage, and
wholeness
• Developing a greater understanding of why one was
placed for adoption, which can
reduce a sense of abandonment and increase a sense of
belonging
• Relating to birth family members as real people rather
than idealized (fantasized) or
overly negative images

• Increasing life-long relationships and support systems
The benefits of open adoption for birthparents are also
numerous:
• Helping them gain a sense of control over the placement
of their child
• over time, gaining peace of mind regarding the welfare of
their child
• Developing a positive relationship with the adoptive
parent(s) as the child grows
and develops
• Becoming more satisfied with the entire adoption process
Transracial adoption
Transracial adoption is adoption by parents who are a different
race or ethnicity from the
children they adopt, usually White parents adopting Black or
Asian children. Transracially
adopted children can be divided into two general groups:
American minority children (espe-
cially Black, Native American, Hispanic, and biracial or
biethnic children) and children of
color from other countries, including Africa, Latin America, and
Asia. In addition to the chal-
lenges of all adoptive families, transracially adoptive families
must struggle with a variety of
issues related to adopting children who have a different race or
ethnicity from their adoptive
parents.
Red_pepper82/iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ An open adoption would allow this baby to grow

up with a greater understanding of his identity and
the story behind his adoption, potentially expanding
his support network and reducing feelings of
abandonment and anxiety.
International adoption
Between 1999 and 2013, there were almost 250,000 for-
eign children adopted by U.S. parents, the vast majority
of them under 3 years of age (U.S. Department of State,
2013) (see Figure 2.6). The number of foreign adoptions
rose from approximately 8,000 in 1989 to almost 23,000
in 2004 before falling back to less than 9,000 in 2012
(Juffer & van Ijzendoorn, 2005; U.S. Department of State,
2013). In 2012, the top countries for foreign adoptions
were China, Ethiopia, Russia, South Korea, and Ukraine
(Russia has since halted its U.S. adoption program) (U.S.
Department of State, 2013).
For many parents who adopt children from abroad—
either of the same or different race or ethnicity—there
is a deep concern about children who may have spent
their early years in orphanages. This is particularly true
for children from Eastern Europe. Children adopted from
some of these foreign countries struggle with attach-
ment and may never be fully able to securely attach to
their new parents (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002).
Because of early experiences in orphanages, these chil-
dren may never be able to develop a close attachment to
anyone. The longer children spent in institutional care in

their home country, and the more neglectful that care, the more
likely these children will suf-
fer from intellectual and emotional problems and struggle to
develop a healthy attachment to
their new parents (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002).
Figure 2.6: Foreign adoptions to U.S. parents by age, 1999–
2013
Source: U.S. Department of State (2013). Intercountry Adoption
Statistics. Retrieved from
http://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/about-us/
statistics.html
Voisin/Phanie/Superstock
ሁ often, transracial and
international adoption coincide;
foreign adoptions in the United
States reached their peak in 2004,
with 23,000 adoptions.
f02.06
18 and older
5–12 years
3–4 years
1–2 years
Under 1 year
13–17 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Section 2.4Grandparent-Headed Families
2.4 Grandparent-Headed Families
For most adults with children, part of growing older is
becoming a grandparent. on average,
adults in the United States become grandparents at age 45
(Blieszner & Roberto, 2006), and
85% of adults over the age of 65 have grandchildren (Livingston
& Parker, 2010). Because of
midlife divorce, discussed above, and other factors,
approximately one in five grandparents is
divorced, widowed, or separated (Davies
& Williams, 2002). Many of these grand-
parents enjoy interacting with their
grandchildren and being free to come and
go when they choose.
When grandchildren arrive, grandparents
tend to be more giving, because there is
now more for them to do—both directly
and by giving gifts and other things the
children need (Brooks, 2011). Grandpar-
ents can help their adult children with
child-rearing advice, and regale them
with stories about how they were as a
baby. They can reflect on the trials and
frustrations of parenthood, and provide
both direct physical support and emo-
tional support. They can provide child

care, medical advice, and help buy needed
clothes and other essential items, if only for birthdays and
cultural holidays. often the arrival
of a new grandchild helps soften the relationship between the
parent and the adult child,
with both coming closer as they support and care for the young
child (Brooks, 2011). In many
cases, parents and their adult children who have been estranged
for long periods of time can
be reunited by the arrival of a grandchild (Wright, 1998).
In some families, especially African American, Latino, Asian,
and some new immigrant fami-
lies, grandparents are directly involved in many child-rearing
duties (Sudarkasa, 2007). In a
national survey taken in 2000 of 890,000 households, more than
500,000 African Americans
aged 45 and older were estimated to be raising grandchildren
(Minkler & Fuller-Thomson,
2005). Grandparents often provide direct assistance and support
to help raise the children of
teen mothers, which is particularly helpful. This allows the
teens to finish school and possi-
bly start a career (Garcia-Coll, Surrey, &Weingarten, 1998;
Longoria, 2009). Not surprisingly,
children raised in single-mother homes where grandparents
provided direct assistance and
support were better emotionally and socially adjusted than those
who only lived with their
single mothers (Ruiz & Silverstein, 2007).
When grandparents choose to accept raising their grandchildren,
many aspects of their lives
change radically. Plans for travel, community and social
activities, and pursuing a favorite
hobby or a quiet retirement must now be placed on hold. The

grandparents’ relationship with
each other, their children, and their grandchildren also change.
There are physical, emotional,
and financial costs associated with raising grandchildren, and, if
a biological parent (usually
the mother) lives in the same home, conflict over authority,
education, and values are bound
to arise (Rothenberg, 1996) (see The Evolving Family: Meet
Tim and Sarah).
ሁ While it is not unusual for grandparents to
take active roles in the lives of their grandchildren,
occasionally they are called upon to take direct
responsibility for them.
Section 2.5Teen Parent Families
Because many grandparents have not had direct responsibility
for raising children for some
time, they are often unaware of support programs and services
for children in the community
and school, and from the state and federal government.
Furthermore, grandparents may need
expert help and support when they first agree to care for their
grandchildren. Their home will
need to be child-proofed, depending on the child’s age. Among
other requirements, in all
homes where children live, poisons and guns need to be locked
away, medicine cabinets made

secure, water features and pools fenced in, water heater
temperature adjusted, and sharp
objects in the kitchen and garage locked away.
2.5 teen Parent Families
In 1990, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States was 117
pregnancies among 1,000 ado-
lescent girls aged 15–19 years. This rate then declined during
the next 15 years to 69.5 per
1,000 girls in 2005. During the same time period, teen births
dropped 35%. However, in 2008,
T H E E v O L v I n g F a M I L y : M E E T T I M A N D S
A R A H
Tim and Sarah are in their late 60s. They own a tree-trimming
company where Tim orga-
nizes the trimming crews and does the estimates, and Sarah runs
the office. Both are
beginning to suffer from age-related health problems.
Tim and Sarah have a grown daughter who lives with her
African husband and two daugh-
ters in Ghana. David, their daughter’s 8-year-old son by her
first husband, lives with Tim
and Sarah. His father is no longer in the picture and has no
contact with the family. David
initially traveled with the family to Ghana, but when he lived
there he struggled in the
school, because of his noticeable American accent and cultural
differences. Tim and Sarah
offered to raise their grandson in the United States.
David attends the local public school and is involved in a
number of extracurricular
activities. Tim and Sarah’s church, which is within walking
distance from their suburban

home, provides activities for local children on weekends and
holidays. The school district
provides programs during vacation and before- and after-school
programs. David will
go to Ghana to stay with his family during the summer, and
return to Denver in the fall.
Although they love him unconditionally, David is quite a
handful and causes some resent-
ment in both Tim and Sarah, who had hoped to slowly transition
into retirement.
This scenario illustrates not only how grandparents can become
involved in caring for a
grandchild, but also that, like everything else in today’s world,
grandparents caring for
grandchildren can “go global,” producing far-flung family
networks and their own unique
issues and challenges.
1. Do you think David would be better off living with his
mother and stepfather in Ghana
than with his grandparents in Colorado? Why or why not?
2. How would you advise teachers in David’s school to support
David and his family?
3. How do you think David will relate to his half-sisters in
Ghana? What advice would you
give his grandparents regarding these important relationships?
4. How many of the specific challenges listed earlier in this
chapter are illustrated by this
scenario?

1Families and Children JupiterimagesCreatasThinkstock.docx

1Families and Children JupiterimagesCreatasThinkstock.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from felicidaddinwoodie

More from felicidaddinwoodie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1Families and Children JupiterimagesCreatasThinkstock.docx