SPECIAL REPORT

Adolescents in Families Adopting Older Children: Implications for Service

MARGARET WARD JOHN H. LEWKO

Editor's Note: The study reported here is of necessarily limited scope and design because of the realistically small number of adoptions with families containing adolescents that are available for examination. The findings and conclusions ofthe authors are nonetheless useful for agencies involved in special-needs adoption.

The growth of special-needs adoptions, including the adoption of older children, has brought a corresponding realization that the family faces difficulties in making the new child a closely attached member, so that the adjustment period is often referred to as a time of family crisis [Katz 1977]. Yet one part of the family in crisis has been generally ignoredthose children who are already family members when the new child arrives. One personal-experience article calls them "the invisible children" [Ward 1982]. There is virtually no information on what these youngsters consider their problems following the adoption of a new sibling, nor of the resources they use to cope with these problems.
Margaret Ward, M.A., is Teaching Master, Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology, Ontario, Canada. John H. Lewko, Ph.D., is Director, Centre for Child and Development Studies, Laurentian University, Ontario, Caruida. 0009-4021/87/060539-09 $1.50 Child Welfare League of America 539

540

CHILD WELFARE / Volume LXVI, Number 6 / November-December 1987

Since there is so little information about children who are already members of adopting families, it is helpful to look at other situations where older children became siblingsfoster and stepfamilies. According to reports from parents and professionals, difficulties may run the gamut from extreme rivalry and aggression to problems conceming "turf' (i.e., space and possessions). Confiicts over possessions are common in both foster and stepfamilies [Ellis 1972; Johnson 1980], and apparently also occur in adoptive families [Camey 1976]. There can also be changes in lifestyle, especially if very dismptive children or sibling groups are adopted. Accustomed rules often have to be renegotiated [Wilkes 1974, 1979]. The child already in the family can experience problems in forming a relationship with the new brother or sister, or in coping with changes in existing relationships. Because of repeated separations, the newly placed child may have difficulty in forming normal affectionate ties. Older children have often leamed how to manipulate others to avoid intimacy. One common strategy, which can be used to manipulate either family members or friends of siblings, is that of dividing and conquering [Jewett 1978]. Using such means, the new child can compete effectively with other children in the family. Wilkes [1974, 1979] suggests that a major reason for distress among biological children of foster parents is that accustomed roles do not work well any more, and new roles have to be leamed. During interviews, teenagers already living in families that adopted older children said that the most important thing they had to give up was the attention of their parents [Cohen 1981]. The same kind of parental deprivation is described as the lot of foster children [Ellis 1972; Wilkes 1974]. It has become nearly axiomatic that social support can moderate the effects of social stress and help the creation of a new equilibrium. Investigations of adolescents' support systems indicate that they rely primarily on friends and on their immediate families [Burke and Weir 1979; Youniss and SmoUar 1985]. There has, however, been no investigation ofthe social supports used by children in adoptive families. It is possible that during the stress of the adoption, these youngsters may experience a reduced level of social support. Preferential adopters (i.e., adopters with biological children) do not receive the same support from relatives or friends as infertile adopters do [Feigelman and Silverman 1979, 1983]. The same attitude may affect the children in the families. Support received from parents may also be reduced, since they must concentrate on integrating the new child into the family. There is no information available on the part played by social workers or organizations for adopting families in helping children already in these families adjust to their new sibling.

Margaret Ward I John H. Lewko

541

The Study The present study was an attempt to explore what teenagers who were already members of families that adopted older children considered problems with new siblings. This group was selected for two reasons. Adolescence can be a period of turmoil as teenagers form a new and more independent relationship with their parents. Therefore, there was concem on the part of parents and social workers about the effect of the additional stress of an older-child adoption. Adolescents are also more articulate than younger children, a useful quality in an exploratory study. For convenience, these youngsters are referred to as "resident teenagers." The investigation also sought to discover the sources of social support resident teens used and their opinions conceming the adequacy of these supports. Families that had recently adopted a school-aged child and that also contained at least one adolescent were located through agencies in Ontario and Pennsylvania. Parents filled out a brief questionnaire that provided information on the family and, with their parents' consent, teens completed a much longer one. Separate stamped envelopes were provided for their retum. The teen questionnaire had four parts. The fu-st was a data sheet asking for age, sex, and grade ofthe respondent. Next were Perceived Social Support Scales based on those developed by Procidano and Heller [1983], but adapted for use by younger individuals. These scales explored the adolescent's relationship with parents, siblings, and friends. Third, the teens were asked to rate both new and old siblings on a list of problems drawn fi-om the literature and from conversations with adoptive families. There was room for them to add to the list. Finally, they were asked to rate various individuals as to the practical and emotional support they provided following the adoption. Contrary to initial impressions of social workers consulted, families meeting these criteria appear to be rare. Agency after agency reported having made no recent placements of a school-age child with families containing a resident teenager. Usable questionnaires were received from parents and 15 adolescents in nine families. Two teens from each of four families and three from another responded. All parents but one were white; the exception was a Canadian Indian father. Most were also middle class, with mothers generally homemakers. All were two-parent families, including two stepfamilies. Following the latest adoption, the families were large, ranging from three to 10 children (mean = 5.2). For five families this was the first adoption. The new children included four sibling pairs, a sibling group of four, an emotionally disturbed child, a child coming from a previous adoption disruption, and four transracial placements. The

542

CHILD WELFARE / Volume LXVI, Number 6 / November-December 1987

resident teenagers (seven males, eight females) who responded ranged in age from 12'/2 to 20 years (mean = 15). Most were biological rather than adopted (11 vs. 4). Problems Experienced with Old and New Siblings The teenagers reported more problems with their new siblings (mean = 17.5) than with their already resident brothers (mean = 14.0) or sisters (mean = 11.75). These scores refiect both the number and severity of problems. They complained most about the newcomer's lying, interfering with privacy, and failing to obey rules. Tattling and refusal to listen when the teenager was babysitting were also considered problem areas. Differences between problems experienced with old and new siblings appeared to be more of degree than of kind. Most of the problems reported for both sets of siblings were ones that might affect parent-child relationships (for example, lying, tattling). There were few explicit complaints of interference with relationships with friends or parents. Although the majority of the difficulties reported seemed to be hassles of everyday life, they could create severe distress for the teen. One girl even asserted that because of the adoption, she herself planned to have no children at all. Sources of Support The questionnaire viewed social support in two ways. The Social Support Scales included specific items that indicated the quality of interaction, while the Support Rating Scales provided a more global evaluation of support following the adoption. The teens scored friends highest on the Social Support Scales, with siblings and parents lagging behind. The items receiving highest scores on the Social Support Scales for parents were those that refiected practical support: for example, "My parents are good at helping me solve problems," "My parents pay attention to my wishes and needs." Friends received high ratings on items refiecting emotional support. When one examines the ratings given individuals who could be supportive following the adoption situation, it is apparent that most of the adolescents relied heavily on their parents, especially their mothers. Mothers consistently received ratings on the Support Rating Scale higher than or equal to those given fathers, particularly for practical support. If the mother received a high rating, the father and siblings were also likely to receive a high rating; it was similar for low ratings. Most of the teens with low levels of support from their parents did have some source of social support, usually from friends and sometimes from a sibling. A few teenagers wished that their parents were much different. None had similar feelings about siblings or friends.

Margaret Ward I John H. Lewko

543

Support available from outside the nuclear family appeared for most teens to be relatively separate from the adoption situation. Most friends were perceived as giving a high level of emotional support, but a relatively lower level of practical support. Other individuals such as extended family members, teachers, and social workers were not regarded by most teens as being particularly helpful or understanding. Problems and Support Both social support and problems appeared family centered, and probably were of an interactive nature. The problems reported with the new, but not with the old, siblings were significantly (p>.01) related to the Perceived Social Support Scale score given the parents, when the extreme scores from the two teens belonging to the family that adopted an emotionally disturbed boy were omitted. When the five families that provided two or three subjects each were considered, the adolescent who gave parents the lowest social support score also reported more problems than did his or her sibling who had responded to the questionnaire. This is true even when both siblings reported high or low problem levels. Some other suggested pattems emerged, although numbers were too small to analyze statistically: 1) oldest daughters and 2) teens in large families and 3) teens in stepfamilies reported lower support levels and more severe problems than other respondents. The relationship between problem levels and support is probably complex and argues the need for a systems approach to services provided the family. The activities of the new child can directly affect the teen, for example, by intruding on privacy or through stealing or destructiveness. The adoptee also directly affects the parent through behavioral and attachment difficulties. There are also indirect effects on the resident teen. If the mother is physically and emotionally drained by the new child or by conflicts between old and new children (as might happen if she received inadequate relief or emotional support), she may need to focus her attention selectively. If she provides high levels of support to the resident teen, the relationship with the new child may falter. What most parents probably do, however, is focus on forming a relationship with the new chiid, and give reduced support to the resident child, who has presumably been coping well to this point. With reduced support, hassles and other problems loom larger for the resident teen. Increasing conflict between children can lead to further stress on the mother, which in turn produces a higher level of exhaustion. Another factor is the level of social skill the adolescent possesses, particularly the ability to solve stress-related problems. If he or she does not have this ability, and the parents are not able to offer practical and emotional

544

CHILD WELFARE / Volume LXVI. Number 6 / November-December 1987

guidance, the adolescent can feel powerless. As a result teens can become angry toward new or old siblings. If the family denies the presence of problems, the adolescent might become depressed and generally feel alienated from family members and friends. Since adolescence can be turbulent, the pressure to adapt to increased daily hassles may require more social skills than the teen has developed. Implications for Service The findings of this s_tudy raise some issues for adoption practice. The interrelation of problems and social supports strongly argues a systems approach, as Katz [1977] has suggested. Although the investigation surveyed only teenagers, many aspects of their experience probably hold true for younger resident children. Two areas deserve particular attention: selection of adoptive families and postplacement services. Often agency personnel question prospective parents about the support available from extended family members. Since, however, many adopters of older children are preferential adopters (that is, able to produce biological children), they may receive low levels of approval from extended family. Friends also show less approval of adoptions by fertile couples [Feigeiman and Silverman 1979, 1983], As a result, the marital relation becomes particularly important as a source of support and nurturance. In her study comparing disrupted and nondisrupted adoptions, Cohen [1981] emphasizes the role of the husband as a support to his wife. In families that remained intact, the father was flexible enough to take over child-care duties when the mother was overstressed. He could thus provide her some relief, as he himself built a relationship with the new child. It is questionable, however, if the father could at the time of placement move into a new role vis a vis the resident children. Thus, even if he is willing, he may not be able to provide them emotional support if it has not already been part of their relationship. Social workers need to be alert to families where mutual help is not a family value or where roles are so rigidly defined that only mothers are seen as nurturant. In some families the mother might value her role as "mother" so much that she cannot share nurturing with other famiiy members. These families may lack the necessary flexibility or social skills for support. These considerations are particularly important if the agency does not have funds or personnel to provide levels of postplacement service that would help such families cope with adoption-related difficulties. Particularly in these circumstances, selection of parents is of crucial importance.

Margaret Ward I John H. Lewko

545

There are a number of practical ways in which agencies can assure that the mother's resources are not depleted through emotional or physical exhaustion. The range of services provided might include household help, parent relief, pairing with an experienced adoptive family in a "buddy system," provision of a hotline to help defuse a situation where the mother feels desperate, or encouragement of an adoptive parents' group to provide continuing support. The services provided will, of course, have to be tailored to both the particular needs of the parents and what the family regards as acceptable. For example, a mother who feels guilty about spending time away from her children may find weekend relief unacceptable, but babysitting for an aftemoon a week or regular household help might offer a welcome respite. Children already in the family need adequate preparation for the arrival of the child or children. Since the behavior that appears particularly bothersome is of the nature of daily hassles, special attention should be paid to the way new children interacted with other children in previous placements. What tactics have they used to get their own way, to retaliate against others, or to manipulate both children and adults? Children within the adopting family can then be helped to develop strategies for dealing with such behavior. Resident teens interviewed by Cohen [1981] felt that the social worker should discuss with them as well as their parents the behavioral management of the adoptee, since they also need help in coping. One promising method is group preparation for the resident "sibs-to-be" [Hogue and McMonagle 1980], Preparation of this nature has two benefits. First it can help the adolescents leam how to cope with hassles, and develop their own sense of competence. Second, if the adoption worker has taken the trouble to help them anticipate difficulties, the way is opened for a post-placement supportive relationship should they experience high levels of stress. Preparing the resident adolescent adequately for the imminent adoption can also reduce stress on the mother. The key aspect is not so much the resident teen's behavior as the attitudes that produce that behavior. If the teen has strategies for coping with the adoptee's behavior, he or she is less likely to increase the parents' stresses. In addition, the teen can be helped to understand the additional demands on the parents and enlisted as "mother's helper" in integrating the new child into the family. This does not mean assuming the role of a surrogate parent. Rather it involves behaving like a helpful and kind sibling who assists the new child in leaming how to deal with family members, not fomenting conflict. It can also include a normal responsibility for household chores for the teen similar to that of other children in the family including the adoptee. In these ways, instead of being a stressor, the teen can become part of the mother's support system.

546

CHILD WELFARE / Volume LXVI, Number 6 / November-December 1987

As a preventive measure, it is important that the social worker ensure that the resident adolescent has support sources outside the nuclear family. One step is the provision of groups for adolescents who are experiencing difficulties, A particular concem is the resident teen who is isolated from his peers. Such a youngster may need special help in developing interpersonal skills, either through services provided by the placement agency or referral to another resource. The assurance that the resident teen has outside supports is important for those cases where the adoption strains resources within the family so severely that support is weakened or fails altogether. As this study suggests, not all teens in a family respond in the same way to a major change like adoption. The worker should remain sensitive to possible differences among children with a view to detecting the one who is particularly vulnerable to the stresses accompanying adoption. It follows that this youngster will need additional service. The problems experienced by adolescents already living in adopting families underline the importance of providing postplacement services not only to the new parents and child, but to the other children in the family. The stresses they suffer are the result in part of the social work action that resulted in adoptive placement for a child in agency care. The agency thus has some responsibility for lessening the stress. Providing such services will ultimately further the aim of the placement. By helping adoptee, parents, and resident children adapt to the adoption of an older child, adoption workers can help build a family that can better nurture all its members,

References
Burke, Ronald J,, and Weir, Tamara, "Helping Responses of Parents and Peers and Adolescent Well-being." Journal of Psychology 102 (May 1979): 49-62, Carney, Ann, No More Here and There: Adopting the Older Child, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1976, Cohen, Joyce S, Adoption Breakdown with Older Children, Toronto: University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, 1981, Ellis, Lillian, "Sharing Parents with Strangers: The Role of the Group Home Foster Family's Own Children," Child Welfare LI, 3 (March 1972): 165-170, Feigeiman. William, and Silverman, Arnold R, "Preferential Adoption: A New Mode of Family Formation," Social Casework 60 (May 1979): 296-305, Chosen Children: New Pattems of Adoptive Relationships, New York- Praeger 1983. Hogue, JoAnn and McMonagle, Ruth, "Working with Sibs-to-be," Adoption Report 5 (Summer 1980): 4,

Margaret

Ward I John H. Lewko

547

Jewett, Claudia L, Adopting the Older Child, Harvard, MA: Harvard Common Press, 1978, Johnson, Harriette C, (1980), "Working with Stepfamilies: Principles of Practice," Social Work 25 (July 1980): 304-308, Katz, Linda, "Older Child Adoptive Placement: A Time of Family Crisis," Child Welfare LVl (March 1977): 165-171. Procidano, Mary E., and Heller, Kenneth. "Measures of Perceived Social Support from Friends and from Family: Three Validation Studies." American Joumal of Cotnmunity Psychology 11 (February 1983): 1-24, Ward, Margaret, "The Invisible Children." Adoption Report 7 (Winter 1982): 1, 4. Wilkes, James R, "The Impact of Fostering on the Foster Family," Child Welfare LIII (June 1974): 373-379, "The Stresses of Fostering, Part II: On the Fostering Children," Joumal of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies 22 (December 1979): 7-12. Youniss, James, and Smollar, Jacqueline. Adolescent Relations with Mothers, Fathers, and Friends, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985, (Address requests for a reprint to Margaret Ward, 465 Loach's Road, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, P3E2R2.)

MOVING?
Mak tur CHILDWELFARE gotoleng...
1. For FASTEST service, attach aid mailing label in space belaw:

If mailing label Is nat available, print yaur OLD name and address in this bax. 2. Print yoor NEW address here.
r>4ame Address (it student, give name of schcxsO Title..

Cify State Zlp_ D Check here to renew your subscription. Attach mailing label obove. N/tall to: Child Welfare League of America c/o Transaction. Inc. Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Please alow six weeks for change to take effect.