Fostering Relationships

When researching this paper I thought about my own children’s relationships and the effect our foster children had on them. What changes did their presence cause in our children’s relationships? Was our family’s experience unique or are there certain changes that occur in all foster families? I knew that relationships are affected in a variety of ways when foster children enter a family but, other than my own reflections and observations, I was unsure how sibling relationships are affected. In view of this the central question of this paper will be: “ What effects do foster children have on sibling relationships?”

For the purposes of this paper the following definitions will be used. “Foster child” will be defined as a child living with an unrelated adult, or foster parent, who provides parental care. The term “siblings” will be limited to the New World’s Dictionary definition: “two or more persons born of the same parents.” “Relationship” will be defined as :” the total of the interactions (physical, verbal, and non-verbal communication) of two or more individuals who share knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding each other”. This study will mainly concentrate on siblings and foster homes in the United States since the majority of the research I utilized comprised studies done in the US.

In researching the impact foster children have on a family, I found that this was almost an unexplored area. I found several longitudinal studies on how foster children fared in adult life. I discovered several books dealing with the feelings of foster children in a family. I found a study in Scotland that looked into the area of biological feelings towards foster care as well as a study in the United States that focused on biological siblings dealing with learning disabled foster children. These, and other literature, will be briefly discussed in Chapter Three.

The rest of the books I found were handbooks for case workers, but the literature was silent on the subject of foster care families’ interpersonal relations as a result of the placement. One reason for this could be due to a quirk in our current foster care system. Our current system and the ideal foster care seem to have diametrically opposite goals. The definition of fostering children is “to bring up with care; to help grow and develop; having the standing of a specified member of the gamily giving and receiving or sharing the care appropriate to that standing” (New World Dictionary). While foster families work very hard to help the foster child blend in and feel wanted and cared for, the objective of foster agencies is to have the child returned to their original home as soon as possible. Actually foster families are encouraged not to get too emotionally involved or attached to the children. “The stated purpose of foster care placement is to provide temporary care for the child, either while protecting his/her ties to the absent parent with whom he/she is expected to be reunited or while a search is on for adoptive parents”.

I decided to focus on the effects of foster children on sibling relationships for several reasons. First, it seems to be an unexplored area in the United States. The main focus of all current literature and studies is on the impact on the foster children themselves rather than the fostering family. Second, the dynamics of sibling relationships intrigue me. Third, my own experiences when foster children entered my family were so dramatic that I wondered if they were the exception or the rule. Finally, I wondered what, if anything, happened to sibling relationships when a foster child left the foster home.

To gather information outside my own experiences with foster children, I decided to do a survey of foster families to find out how they are affected. Some of the results were expected, due to my own experiences, some were surprising.

According to a study done by Buhrmester and Furman in 1990, “as later-born siblings grow older, they become more competent and independent, thereby requiring and accepting less nurturance and direction from older siblings”. Even with the disagreements between researchers on the length of the intensity of the relationships one thing is apparent, most of the relationships do continue on into adulthood to varying degrees, although sometimes, as siblings move out of the home, a slackening of the relationship occurs. In our mobile society, that is a believable assertion.

Siblings go through many stages in their relationships: indifference; connection; competition; generous sacrifice and loyal support. As we grow older we tend to view our sibling relationships in a different light. We have different needs and expectations of our relationship.

According to different researchers, many things can affect the interpersonal relationship among siblings: genetics, birth order, the environment, gender, spacing of children, birth of a new baby, the roles assumed in the family, and parenting styles. These are often referred to as family constellation variables.

One might think that children being brought up in the same household would have similar propensities and, therefore, good relationships. Yet, often you find parents lamenting, “How can my children be so different from one another when they are from the same parents?” Perhaps an easier way to find the answer would be to look at the question in the reverse by looking at how children in a family are similar.

Conception results in the bonding of twenty-three pairs of chromosomes with one in each pair being from the mother and one from the father.

On each chromosome are thousands of different genetic components that determine different physical and psychological traits. For each minuscule genetic component, two siblings have, on average, a fifty-fifty chance of inheriting the same propensity. The range, researchers believe is between 35 percent and 65 percent; thus, some of the siblings are much more alike than others. (Note” Interestingly enough, siblings who are more alike genetically you can actually tell that this is so at a glance; physical resemblance is a marker of genetic resemblance.)...If siblings are 50 percent alike genetically they are also 50 percent different. And yet, in fact, on most measures of personality, siblings are more dissimilar than that; in study after study, they have been shown to be more unalike than alike.

If indeed, as scientific research concludes, there are thousands of genetic components that make up each individual, then it is a miracle that children in the same family are similar at all. Even with the same types of genes “ a gene is only a probability for a given trait, not a guarantee” (Peyser and Underwood). Yet, some researchers believe that genes play the most important role in a child’s personality. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory has heredity playing a dominant role on children’s personalities with environment playing a minor role.

Researchers Arnold Gesell and Frances Ilg also believe that a persons’s genes play the greatest role in determining a child’s behavior. Their research has lead them to conclude that genes predetermine how a child is going to act, almost like on a schedule, during the child’s first two decades of life. In a recent study conducted by Dr. David Reiss and his colleagues at George Washington University they concluded that “parents have relatively little effect on how children turn out, once genetic influence is accounted for.” Robert Plomin, a behavioral geneticist, believes that “genes have a much greater influence on our personalities than previously thought, and parenting much less.”

Harvard researcher, Jerome Kagen, who has monitored children for more than seventeen years, claims that he can detect sighs of shyness in babies even before they are born. Thus, the genes, not the environment, would have the most impact on whether or not a child is shy. His research indicates that the hearts of children beat faster in the womb than other babies. But he is quick to point out that inherited shyness, “a condition in which the brain somehow sends out a message to avoid new experiences,” can be tempered by the actions of parents. Accordingly, even if children inherit a propensity towards shyness, the environment in which they live has some degree of control over this propensity. Kagen seems to be straddling the fence on this issue. He believes that genes have the “greatest impact,” yet he admits that parents, who are part of the child’s environment can mitigate that impact.

Behavioral geneticists do not necessarily believe that a child’s every action is determined by heredity, but they do feel that heredity “reveals itself through complex interactions with the environment”. This seems to allude to the fact that the environment does indeed exert some influence on the child’s personality. Even when fate and genetics step in, allowing children to inherit the same propensities, there are still other factors that could make them dissimilar. Researchers Peyser and Underwood believe that for a “trait to be expressed, a gene often must be ‘turned on’ by an outside force”. If that is true, we need to look at other forces, outside the human body, that would effect personality and, thus, relationships. The environment that a child lives in has to be considered. Do genes or the environment have a greater effect on a child?

This is the old question, “Is it nature or nurture?” Behaviorists Bandura and Skinner felt that the environment, with its positive and negative reinforcements, shape a child’s personality. Today many scientists feel that while genetics determine a child’s physical traits, genetics and the environment work as a team to determine a child’s personality. “Genes control the brain’s neurotransmitters and receptors, which deliver and accept mental messages like so many cars headed for their assigned parking spaces. But there are billions of roads to each parking lot, and these paths are very susceptible to environmental factors” (Peyser and Underwood).

If one looks at the research done on the physiological structure of the brain, one begins to realize that a combination of both heredity and environment must influence a child’s development and personality. One recent discovery in brain research is what has been termed “brain plasticity.” Brain plasticity is when the actual structure of the brain changes as we experience life. In other words, every experience we go through, good or bad, changes the physical structure of the brain in some way due to that experience. According to research done at the University of California, Berkeley:

We now have evidence to illustrate the details of the anatomical changes that do occur with modification in the environment. This evidence addresses many of the questions that concerned early sociologists and educators, including the effects of the environment on the young.
If, as research shows, the actual structure of the brain changes with environmental interaction, then one must conclude that neither heredity nor the environment is the sole determining factor on the development and behavior of children; it is the combination of the two. “Children are not blank slates. They change both psychologically and physically, as they ‘absorb’ life” (Caine and Caine). Accordingly, the moment we start interacting with the environment, the physiological components of our brain start changing and making new connections based on what we experience. This represents a dramatic shift in thinking from genetic paradigms. Since experiences are unique to individuals, then the way the environment affects and individual could influence his or her personality.

The idea that parents can pass on genes that not only carry physical characteristics but personality traits is fascinating. As stated above research indicates that one can tell which family’s genes played a more major role in a developing child, since “physical resemblance is a marker of genetic resemblance” (Merrell). Yet, the connection between physical traits and personality traits does not seem to hold true in my own family. My husband and I have brown hair and brown eyes while our oldest son has red hair and brown eyes, our second son has brown hair and brown eyes and our daughter has blond hair and blue eyes. Certainly in my own family the gene pool went through a dynamic splash. My second son is the only one who looks the most like me when I was a child, yet in personality and temperament we are poles apart. He is much more like his father in these aspects. This would seem to contradict the evidence that the child who looks most like the parent would also have the same personality traits as that parent, unless my son is an exception to the rule.

My husband loves hunting and fishing and most sports. Our second son loves hunting and fishing and soccer but our first born does not like any sports. I love crafts, reading and teaching. Our first born loves reading. My second son and daughter hate reading. My daughter shares my love of teaching and crafts but our other two children do not.

Yet, would not the environment that our children live in support their own genetic tendencies? Would my daughter, who likes crafts, have developed this disposition towards crafts if she did not have a mother who liked them, thus exposing her to them? Would my son who loves to hunt and fish have ever discovered this propensity if my husband were not on the scene to set the stage for this? Researcher Annie Murphy Paul feels that the environment a parent provides may support a child’s natural abilities. She is also quick to point out that the opposite can cause conflict. If a child’s environment does not permit or encourage expression of his or her natural tendencies then stress can result. This stress would not only be between parent and child but between siblings as well, especially one sibling “fits the mold” and the other does not.

Do inherited dispositions towards certain likes and dislikes exert themselves within the environment of a home with an absentee parent, when that parent was the one who had the tendencies? Research does not seem to have dept peace with the changing family structures of the eighties and nineties to answer this question.

Another factor geneticists are just beginning to explore that affects sibling relationships is the genetic endowment of a variety of types of nervous systems. They have been able to identify genes that predict risk-taking tendencies. As researcher Annie Murphy Paul puts it:

As genes are calling forth particular reactions, they’re also reaching out for particular kinds of experience. That’s because each person’s DNA codes for a certain type of nervous system: one that feels alarm at new situations, one that craves strong sensations, or one that is sluggish and slow to react.

Even if it is determined, as many scientists believe, that the environment has a great influence on developing children’s personalities and thus, affecting sibling relationships, the environment itself has to be examined. Physically siblings may share the same environment: the same home; parents and even bedroom, but the way siblings perceive their environment makes their environment totally different. Additionally, the different experiences that children have, at home and at school, further alter th environment in which the child lives. It is almost as if children are not only influenced by their environment, but the reciprocal is also true. They have an effect on creating or influencing their own environment by seeking out different experiences and by evoking different responses from parents, siblings and others.

Finding this information in my research amazed me. My older sister always contended that we were raised differently. I always contended that we were raised the same, with the same parents and the same rules so her claim made no sense to me. After my research I began to reflect on her assertions and realized that she was right. Since she was first born, she was literally raised as an only child for two and a half years, an environment which I never experienced. The adjustments that she had to make as an only child who had to now share her parents and grandparents was one I never had to make. Here is where I really began to understand that birth order could make a difference, something that I had never considered before.

In the same respect, my sister who is six years younger than I am, and my brother who is six years younger than she, never shared the exact same environment. My parents were financially in a better position when my brother was born. When my older sister and I were little, my father had to work three jobs just to make ends meet. This is a situation that my brother never lived in. My younger sister had a disability so that her experiences in hospitals, with doctors and with peer relationships were completely different than the ones my older sister and I had. It would seem that, although we all lived in the same home, we actually had different environments. We did not even all live in the same house for long. My brother lived in our first house only two months in which the three oldest siblings had previously always lived in before we moved to another, larger one. He never had the experience that we had of sharing a room with two other siblings. Another aspect that would have made our environments different is that while my sisters and I each had two sisters and one brother, my brother had three sisters. We grew up surrounded by dolls, and doll houses and stuffed animals, but it wasn’t until years later, when I was twelve, that our home was invaded with trucks, cars, model airplanes and G.I. Joe’s. In retrospect, my younger sister had this experience at age six, a notable six years before I did. The idea proposed by Annie Paul in her article in “Psychology Today” that children create their own environment is now easy to understand. I can remember my older sister’s room, with horse statues and posters, cowboy boots and Annie Oakly dolls, while mine had Barbie dolls, posters of kittens and ballerina slippers. I can readily see my own children creating their environments. My oldest son has a computer, many books, stark black and white compositions that he created himself, posters of corvettes and Christmas lights surrounding his room. My younger son has posters of animals, posters about God and nature scenes. While my daughter has pictures of friends, posters of kittens and stuffed animals adorning her room. They have each, in their own way, created their own environment.

When I reflect back on my childhood I can see an additional and substantial difference in my environment from that of my other siblings. Until my oldest sister and I were fourteen and a half and twelve, respectively, my family lived with our grandparents. If we did not agree with or like something our parents did, we would run to tell our grandparents. Here my older sister and I experienced radically different environments. My older sister would turn to my grandmother for consolation, who would than comfort her and always take her side against my parents. I would always turn to my grandfather, who would invariably tell me that whatever my parents said, goes. He would never side with me against them. Even while I realized that, I would still usually turn to him. Perhaps, due in mart to my sister’s genetic make up, she responded differently than I did to a myriad of situations. Even at a young age something inside me, probably due to how the gene pool arranged itself within me, made me feel that my grandmother should not be siding against my parents. Yet, my older sister would always go to my grandmother.

In retrospect, I wonder if this had the effect of making her more rebellious to authority in later years. She went through a turbulent adolescent and teenage years continuously rejecting my parents’ authority. Certainly, if she had propensities toward rebellion, the early experiences with my grandmother did not help, and perhaps accentuated this particular personality trait. Fortunately, she made it through those years and now is a remarkable, caring, compassionate. In my own experience it would seem it would seem that we did, indeed live in separate environments. This was probably caused by a variety of things including, but not limited to, our perceptions of right and wrong and the order in which we were born. I am beginning to realize that, like behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud believed, it is not our actual experiences in childhood that make us the people we are, but how we perceive these experiences.

Interactions between siblings is an area that also has the potential of providing different environments. Researchers Denise Daniels and Robert Plomin put forth this supposition: what if you have one child that is sweet, caring, kind, and compassionate? This child is always willing to lend a helping hand to her sibling, but suppose her sibling usually reciprocates with anger and jealous behavior? This would create a different environment for each sibling.

As mentioned above sometimes when a child is born creates a different environment for that child. This brings me to the issue of birth order. Experts seem to be divided on the role that birth order plays in children. Some researchers believe that birth order plays an important role in determining different personality traits in an individual. Buhrmester and Furman concluded from their 1990 study that “children’s experiences with siblings differ greatly depending on whether they are the older or younger sibling”. They found in their 1985 study that the older siblings reported greater nurturance and dominance of their younger siblings. The reverse was also noted. Younger siblings reported that they were nurtured more and dominated by their older siblings.

Another aspect associated with the order in which children are born in a family is that certain personality characteristics are attributed to children according to birth order. First born children are supposed to be responsible, authoritative, conservative, easy going, willing to compromise, perfectionists, well organized, have leadership potential and reliable. Middle children ( and it must be noted that no distinction is made whether one is the middle of three or of ten although one could would argue that there is a big difference) are supposed to be negotiators, ambitious, easy going, perfectionists, seed to avoid conflict, and have many friends. Youngest children are supposed to be manipulative, outgoing, compassionate, most self-confident, and most ambitious.

Notice the overlap of qualities depending on the source, and possibly, on the birth position of the researcher. Professor Emeritus Sutton-Smith from the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education, feels that much of what is attributed to the results of birth order can really be attributed to other factors, such as parental age and maturity, social class, family size or possibly the birth position of the researcher. That seems plausible, especially if one considers that generally the amount of time that can transpire between the birth of the first and the last gives parents time to mature, gain experience in child raising, and perhaps, gives them time to acquire a higher socioeconomic status in society. According to researchers Bank and Kahn, and Victor Cicirelli much of the data compiled by birth order researchers over the last forty years is inconsistent. Researchers Denise Daniels and Robert Plomin suggest that when socio-economic status is controlled in research groups, and when siblings from the same family are compared, birth-order/behavior relationships show close to zero relevance.

Consider the birth order of famous men compiled by Sutton and Rosenberg: Profession First Born Later Born Psychologists Sigmund Freud Alfred Adler Carl Jung Otto Rank; Philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche John Dewey; Social Philosophers Karl Marx Jean-Jacques Rousseau Martin Luther King Mahatma Gandhi Vladimir Lenin; Mathematicians Albert Einstein Rene` Descartes Issac Newton; Literary William Shakespeare Leo Tolstoy George Bernard Shaw D.H. Lawrence; Military Ulysses S. Grant Robert E. Lee George Patton Napoleon Bonaparte George Washington Erwin Rommel; Politicians Theodore Roosevelt Andrew Jackson Harry Truman Oliver Cromwell Adolph Hitler John Kennedy Winston Churchill Nikita Khrushchev.

When editing famous people in their work, birth order proponents sometime seem to use whoever fits their assertion to make their claim. Looking at the list I would say that the politicians and military leaders from both the first born and later born categories have “leadership potential” that is generally attributed to first born children. In the same respect, both Nietzsche and Dewey could have been considered compassionate, a characteristic often attributed only to later born children. Many of the men listed in the military and political arena would be considered ambitious regardless of the list they are on, a characteristic supposedly only later born children share. Certainly very few people would consider Adolph Hitler as “easy going”, a trait attributed to first born children, although he certainly had leadership qualities. The environmental differences encountered by siblings, who were born at different times, seem to have the potential of greater impact that the actual order of birth does on personalities and relationships.

A study by Buhrmester and Furman seems to suggest that the differences in children due to birth order fades away as the children grow older. In their study they concluded that, as children grow older, the relationship between the oldest child and the younger sibling changes dramatically due to the change in power/status structure. There is a substantial difference between the cognitive, physical, and social capabilities of a newborn versus those of a two-year-old. Yet, as both siblings age, the differences become less dramatic and eventually even out. There is little difference between a nineteen-year-old and a twenty-one year old. “In sum, as siblings grow more competent and their developmental status become similar, their relationships become less symmetrical and egalitarian”. Older siblings are forced to give up their position of authority while younger siblings acquire more footing. Buhrmester and Furman felt that this creates a huge change in the dynamics of relationships between siblings that needs to be explored by future research.

Another component that researchers claim can influence interpersonal sibling relationships is the spacing between children. According to a study done by Furman and Buhrmester in 1985, siblings have the most confrontations if they are of the same sex and spaced fewer than four years apart. An additional study agrees with this but states further that opposite sex siblings spaced two years apart often have conflicting relationships as well. While siblings close in age can be companions for each other, their close ages can lead to competitiveness and quarreling. This can particularly be a problem if the younger sibling excels in some area and surpasses the abilities of the older sibling.

In contrast to this, controlled investigations on the spacing of children, such as those conducted by Vincent Cicerelli and Helen Koch, support the idea that closeness in age and gender seem to intensify sibling relationships in childhood. Their studies show that the closer children are in age the more they have in common, thus a closer interpersonal relationship ensues. When siblings are not only close in age, but also the same gender, they often share friends, toys, rooms and even clothes, thus having the potential of allowing a closer relationship. Closeness in age and gender promotes sharing common life events. Yet, with all these things to share, couldn’t this make the competition tougher and have the potential for more conflict?

One example of when competition between siblings seemed especially keen was reported to me by a friend. She indicated that each of her two older sons did not like the idea of their younger brothers sharing their favorite clothes. My friend reported that her oldest son would routinely hide favorite clothes that he had outgrown in the back of his closet until his sibling, the second son who was only one year younger, was also too big for them. In turn, the second son would do the same to his younger brother, the couple’s third child. It seems that while the boys did not mind handing clothes down generally, their favorites were off limits to their siblings even when they had no use for them. There seemed to be a competition or jealousy with their clothes. Conflict would ensue if the mother found the clothes and took them for the younger sons to wear. The boys often shared their toys and their rooms but did not like sharing favorite items.

Another area in family constellation theories, as I mentioned above, from which sibling relationships are predominantly discussed, is sibling access. Sibling access is the “number of common life events that siblings encounter together”. According to independent studies done by Bank and Kahn and Victor Cicirelli, there is a correlation between the onset and length of access with the intensity of the relationship. This supports the idea that if children are closer in age, thus having a longer time for access, then there may be a closer bond between them.

How do we account for the siblings who go through life having little emotional impact on each other? These are called “low access” siblings, and have some of the following characteristics:

They are often separated by more that eight or ten years, acting almost like members of different generations. They have shared little time, space or personal history, partaking of different schools, friends, and parents (since people are different at different ages) in very different ways. They lack a sense of shared history. They have not needed one another, nor have their parents needed for them to need each other.

In contrast, my older sister and I have many points of sibling access. When we get together today we often laugh while recounting “the good old days”. We not only went through experiences together which brought us closer, they now bind us in the retelling.

My brother often feels a sense of disjointedness with “remember when.. “ stories, (similar perhaps to how in-laws sometimes feel), as he often is left out of the tales. Yet with my own children, I notice an interesting difference in this respect. My youngest daughter often chimes in when we discuss past events in the family that happened before her time. Her “memories” of some instances are actually just memories of our discussing the event. It seems as if shared experiences that she was not part of still have the power to connect her with her siblings due to the retelling of the events.

Often I hear my children talking, laughing, and gently teasing each other about a past event. Their reminiscing binds them together. It gives them an opportunity to laugh at each other and at themselves in a non-confrontational way. I’ve noticed an interesting trend while listening to their recollections. Generally, when my sons reminisce about each other, they bring up events that make the other one look foolish while, when they reminisce about themselves they bring up the recollections that make them look like heroes. My daughter is just as likely to bring up events that make her older brothers appear to be heroes. It makes me wonder whether the difference can be attributed to individual personalities or gender.

One story that is almost always brought up in our discussions of the past is when my oldest son saved my youngest son’s life. It happened many years age when my youngest son was playing on a big wheel, a low to the ground riding toy, in the front yard. I was inside feeding one of my foster children her bottle, and when I glanced out the front window, I was appalled to see my youngest son ride into the street, straight into the path of an oncoming pick-up truck. As if in slow motion, I noticed the driver of the truck had not seen my son. He was busy watching the teen across the street washing her car while wearing he bathing suit. I remember precisely thinking, “My God I’ve lost my son!” Suddenly my oldest boy, then about six years old, streaked out in front of his brother, waving his arms and shrieking at the top of his longs. In horror I thought, “I’ve lost them both!” I felt as though I aged several years in a span of a few seconds. Fortunately my oldest son managed to get the driver’s attention. The driver swerved his vehicle at the last possible moment missing both my boys by mere inches.

I’ve noticed an interesting pattern in the retelling of this story. Whenever this story is brought up it is either my oldest son or my daughter who brings it up. My daughter, at the time of the incident was not born yet. Each time that story is brought up, my youngest son, without fail, then brings up the time he saved his sister’s life. That happened when my daughter was about three and my youngest son was about seven. They were playing in the backyard on a swing set when my daughter’s nylon necklace somehow got entangled on the climbing rope. Unaware that this had happened she jumped off the rope. She literally was in the process of being hanged by the rope with her feet dangling in the air. My son mad the presence of mind to grab her and support her body weight while he screamed for me to come and help. I have no doubt that she would have been hanged if he had run to get me instead. By the time I arrived she was sputtering and turning blue. I had to run back to the house to get a knife to cut her off the climbing rope.

This story is quite inflated by both my youngest son or my daughter. When my youngest son bring this story up it is almost as it is a competition. I wonder if that is due to the propensity of boys to be more competitive or just an intricate part of my youngest son’s personality? If, for some reason. He doesn’t bring it up, then my daughter brings it up. The competitiveness in the relationship between my daughter and my middle son does not seem to be the same as between my two sons. Yet, in retrospect, maybe it is. Perhaps my daughter wants the attention focused on herself in the recounting of a dramatic situation when, even if she was not the hero, she still played a leading role.

The finale to these particular story-telling episodes is usually then brought up by daughter, recounting the time she saved a neighbor from an angry swarm of bees. It seems that while the story-telling brings my children closer, it also serves to remind each other that they are all heroes in their own way – a sort of friendly competition.

Another event that affects, to some degree. The interpersonal relationships of all family members is the birth of a new baby. I remember when a friend of mime, exasperated, told me about how her firs child, then twenty-eight months old, reacted to the birth of her second child. The first child would pinch the second child, rattle the bassinet hard, or take her bottle away, anything to cause a problem. When the mother was spending time with the second child, feeding her or changing her diaper, the first child would do something to get the mother’s attention. One time he took an entire five pound bag of flour and, spinning around, flung it to the far corners of the kitchen. Another time, when the baby started screaming, the mother ran in to find the second child innocently reading a book, smiling smugly. Upon examination, the mother found a bite mark on the baby’s hand.

She read every book she could think of and talked to numerous people about it trying to come up with a solution. Finally, someone told her something that she was sure would work. They told her to get a doll to let the first child take his aggression out on. She bought her first child a doll and presented it to him saying, “This is your doll. Use it to do whatever you want to do to the baby.” She said he looked at her gratefully, his eyes gleamed, then he immediately ran over to the baby and hit her in the head with it!

It seems obvious in the above scenario that the main catalyst to the anger in the relationship was jealousy. The first child was jealous of the time and attention that the second child took. He say it as time and attention being taken from him. This is a typical reaction to newborns by the older the older sibling.

The amount of jealousy that each child feels at the birth of the next child often depends on how they are treated. Yet, is this so strange to understand? In the book Siblings Without Rivalry, Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish presented the following scenario to parents who are having a difficult time dealing with sibling rivalry:

What if your spouse came home one day and said to you, “Honey, I’ve found someone wonderful that I want to share my life with. I still love you very much but I love him/her too. Don’t worry it won’t take anything away from our relationship, in fact it will add to it. We’re going to be a big, happy family”? Then the new spouse arrives and you see he/she is young and cute. When you go over to friends’ or relatives’ houses, people all but ignore you and, excitedly, rush over to the new spouse. “Oh, how adorable! What a beauty.” they say as your spouse stands there and preens. Then they turn to you and say, “how do you like the new spouse?”

Often, when you want to spend time with your spouse, he/she is too busy with the other one. Then his/her new spouse needs clothes and your husband/wife goes to your closet and takes some things out of it saying, “These don’t fit you anymore anyway. Don’t you want to share?” The new spouse is getting smarter and moving around your house more everyday. Finally he/she goes into your room and starts playing with your new computer. When you tell him/her to leave it alone, he/she runs crying to your husband/wife. Your spouse comes in, and, instead of being angry with the new spouse, he/she is angry with you for not sharing!

This scenario shows one of the reasons that sibling rivalry exists. “Rivalry between siblings is normal and inevitable”. Even the guilt that a mother sometimes experiences when bringing a newborn into the family system, can fuel sibling rivalry.

When my second child was born I remember that my initial feelings towards the baby were completely different than towards my first. I remember thinking it was almost unfair of me to bring someone into our family when our small family circle seemed so complete as it was. In speaking to many friends at the time, in the same situation, they expressed the same feelings. Is this a normal reaction to a second child? According to Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, it is. Later, I loved my second child as much, but in the beginning, when bonding is so critical, I did feel differently towards him. Could I have been unconsciously setting the ground for sibling rivalry?

Much research in recent years has been done on sibling relationships, and many authors write about sibling rivalry. According to some, it is a forced relationship that often contains a great deal of conflict. Others feel that sibling rivalry is to be expected as a natural part of growing up, with more positives aspects to it than negative ones. One of the positive factors could be that children learn to deal with each other in an acceptable manner through sibling rivalry. This later sets the stage for them to deal with other people.

According to a study done in 1996, the most common ways that siblings deal with rivalry are by yelling and screaming at each other. Much of the verbal aggression and teasing takes place when the parents are not in the room, so parents are not aware of the amount of it.

My own daughter often reports to me that her older brother, my younger son, acts much differently to her when they are alone than he does when we are home. She reports that he bullies her, teases her, and continuously antagonizes her. Upon reflection, my older sister and I often saw our parents being away as an opportunity to bother my younger sister and brother. We would say things to them that we would never had said if our parents had been there at the time.

According to studies done by Vissing and Bally in 1996, there is evidence that teasing creates “lower relational satisfaction, specifically when one is on the receiving end of the teasing.” But does sibling teasing lead to dissatisfaction in the relationship or was the dissatisfaction in the relationship present which led to the sibling teasing? “Most likely there is an ongoing recursive relationship. Studies by Goodman and Roscoe also report teasing as a form of destructive communication between siblings. According to a study done by Martin, Anderson, Burant and Webber, reported in “Communication Quarterly,” teasing may be a form of verbal aggression. They feel that the results of their study show that teasing is “negatively related to satisfaction and trust in the relationship.” Interestingly it was also reported that “the more people were satisfied with their relationships the more hurt they reported when their sibling was verbally aggressive”. That would make sense. I always believed that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. That is why we have so much power to hurt those we love. If siblings do not have a close relationship then they would be hurt by that the other person says. They would not care. Some researchers claim that teasing may be playful communication or a way of showing affection, therefore it can have a positive effect on the sibling relationship. This may depend on the intent of the teasing, the relationship satisfaction of those involved and the amount of bonding between the siblings.

Another aspect that affects sibling relationships is the role each family member assumes in the family. Family relationship researchers feel that the roles that each child plays in a family have an affect on their relationships to others. This almost seems to go hand in hand with birth order, since often, depending on the birth order of the child, certain roles are sometimes automatically assumed. The oldest child in the family is expected to be more responsible so the role assumed is that of the responsible child. The baby in the family is often expected to be more carefree and is often spoiled, therefore he/she may be more selfish and immature. We can think of the family as a life script where each member performs a certain role. At the same time, however, each person in the script depends on the others to play their role. When a family member steps out of the role, stress often results in the family. Let’s assume that the oldest child is dubbed the “responsible one” in the family. That is his or her role in the script. He or she may be the one that you can always count on to watch out for the younger children. Now if that child steps out of the role, say he/she goes off with a friend, without telling anyone during a family outing, stress occurs. Others in the family try to assume his/her role or cover up for him/her. It doesn’t work, and members of the script are confused and angry. They feel that an important player has let them down. Behavior of all members of the family “is affected by all the events and changes that happen to each member of your family and by the sum of how each plays his or her part.

Often the personality of the child determines his/her role. If a child’s temperament is gentle or compassionate by nature, then that is often assumed in the family. The child is known as “the compassionate one” or the “gentle” one. Interestingly, researchers Bank and Kahn way that “it appears that in most families there is only one person who can occupy a certain psychological space in a family at any one time.” Thus a child’s personality is cultivated as “gentle”, kind”, “compassionate”, the “leader”, or the “organizer” which makes it difficult for any other sibling to take over that role in the family. Unfortunately, these roles may not always be positive. If a child is clumsy early in life he/she may be dubbed the “clumsy” one. This can become a yoke around the child’s neck all his/her life. This is further perpetuated by the words that parents unthinkingly speak in relation to this such as, “Mary you are so clumsy. Can’t you be more careful?’ These words are then often picked up by other family members. The child’s siblings think of him/her as “the clumsy one” and conveys this through verbal and non-verbal communication with that family member. They give each other a “knowing” look and roll their eyes when the child, as all children are prone to do, spills something. It takes on a whole new significance if that child has been dubbed by the family as “the clumsy one”. It soon becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that is hard to negate even as an adult.

Researchers Reed Larson and Maryse Richards, authors of Divergent Realities, believe that the daily family roles that teenagers and adolescents in our society assume have been changed by recent cultural and historic dynamics. They believe that in past generations family roles were more defined due to our agrarian lifestyle. Since teenagers and adolescents are not needed now to work on the farms, and since the advent of middle and high schools, their roles within the family system have drastically changed. Now the majority of them have less responsibilities within the family and they spend more time with their peers at school rather than with their family. Larson and Richards calls this the “roleless role.” In other words the teenager’s role within the family becomes less defined and accepted due to their lack of family responsibilities and being bound by fewer family norms. Larson and Richards contend that adolescence is a pivotal time in children’s lives when they need the structure and support of family. Instead they are forced away from their family and begin to turn to peers, rather than their parents and siblings for support. This idea of being forced away from families at a critical developmental time is supported, as well, by David Veerman, author of Parenting Passages. This is not to say that it happens in all families, and indeed, some letting go is important for independence and autonomy to develop, but it is the timing that seems to be critical and, perhaps, detrimental.

Some Researchers marvel at the way in which siblings seem to choose roles as a way of keeping themselves separate from other siblings; this is referred to as deidentification. “This term was first coined by child psychologist Frances Fuchs Schachter, Ph.D., to describe a phenomenon that occurs most dramatically between same sex siblings, particularly when they are the first two children in a family.” According to Schachter, deidentification is a way to make families run smoother with less conflict. In this way competition between children is reduced to a manageable level. One child can assume the roles of being neat, and gentle while another child is sloppy and wild. This seems to be a way of labeling and defining the self. It allows competition to be kept at a minimum and heightens the self-esteem of each child. Schachter feels that this deidentification allows the children to be more separate, kept at a distance, so that they can feel more loved and affection for each other.

I found this research fascinating, since it seems to apply so readily to my own relationship with my older sister. She is two and a half years older than I am and we are first and second born children. She was loud, rambunctious and stereotyped as a “tom-boy”, while I was quieter, somewhat more manipulative and took on roles more stereotyped as for little girls. I liked dolls; she liked horses. I liked playing house; she liked climbing trees. I found myself playing this role even as a teenager with boyfriends. I distinctly remember going fishing once with a boy when I was sixteen and pretending to be appalled at the thought of touching a worm to bait the hook. Had I been alone I would have thought nothing of it, but it somehow seemed more precocious and feminine; a role that I wanted to portray.

Merrell felt that in the long run deindetification could be self-defeating. Perhaps children will not always be content in the roles the have consciously or unconsciously chosen. Interestingly enough it wasn’t until I became and adult that I started to climb trees, play softball and do things that are usually considered tomboyish. Perhaps that is because the deidentification was no longer necessary to retain the status quo since my sister and I no longer lived together.

Researchers Bank and Kahn looked at deidentification from a slightly different perspective. They felt that deidentification was more of a way of alienating one sibling from another rather than as a way of allowing them their own space so that they can retain harmonious relationship. They believed that it is more of a case where one sibling is saying, “I don’t need you and don’t want to have anything to do with you”. Deidentifying is a way of disowning someone in your own household who you are forced to live with. These siblings interact with each other only if forced to by the parents and then it is with veiled hostility. This relationship continues on to adulthood when the relationship breaks down completely.

While it seems, from my experience, that Merrell’s theories about deidentification are closer to what Schachter originally proposed I can not help but feel that perhaps a combination of the theories is closer to the truth. Admittedly my older sister and I have never been really close. As teenagers we went our separate ways. As adults we are usually there for each other in times of need and are often together for family celebrations, yet our relationship lacks a closeness that my younger sister and I share.

Sometimes it seems as if the family role is dictated by the gender of the child. Dr. Brazelton, a leading expert on raising children, believes that even when parents consciously decide to treat each gender the same they unconsciously treat them differently. If parents expect boys to be rough and tough and girls to be gentle and sweet then this is communicated to other members of the family. The child sometimes acts the role that is expected of him or her. If this is communicated by the toys the parents buy and the way the child(ren) are treated, then sometimes that role is often assumed. If, as in my family, the girl is more sassy and rough, then she is dubbed a tomboy. Sometimes stress in the family can occur when a child does not assume the expected role.

In a study done by Bossard and Boll and in a similar study done by Cicirelli, they found that the oldest child in a family often serves as a parent substitute. This role is assumed particularly if the family is large or the children are spaced over a long period of time. In addition, in accordance with gender-role expectations, it was often the oldest girl who was expected to fulfill this role even if she were not the oldest sibling. While there are always exceptions to any rule, I can relate how stress occurred in my own family when my older sister did not assume the role expected of her. She was not a nurturer, nor was she content to be a parent substitute. This often caused conflict between she and my parents, and between us as well. When she was left to baby-sit as a teen, she would often just take off leaving me to care for my younger siblings. While I do not remember categorizing it as her “role” when I was a child, I do remember thinking that it was her responsibility and feeling unfair when it was pushed off to me. I would then accept the role of caretaker for my siblings and resent her highly for it. Perhaps due to the closeness of our ages, and her personality, my older sister did not like being the one usually held responsible. There are so many variables in any relationship that it is really difficult to know with any certainty what caused the conflict between us. But I am sure that some of it stemmed from her refusal to accept the role of caretaker. It must be noted that her reflections of these times would probably be radically different than mine.

Gender can affect sibling interpersonal relationships in other ways as well. Researchers Thomas Powell and Peggy Ahrenhold Gallagher found that female siblings seem to be better than males at teaching simple tasks to younger siblings. They seem to have more patience and desire to do so, yet males could exhibit this same ability to teach the tasks to children that they were not related to. They also found that school-aged sisters interact more often than brothers do. This may be due to the propensity of females to value their connections between people, with relationships being of a primary importance. These results correlate closely with a study done by Larson and Richards. Teenage girls were reported to spend more of their leisure time chatting with their sisters while teenage boys reported that more of their leisure time was spent with sports or watching television.

The size of families can also affect sibling relationships in a variety of ways. While it was common in the early 1900's to have large families, the families of today are smaller. The average child has only one or two siblings. Having only one or two siblings could create an atmosphere for greater interdependence and intensity in that relationship. In larger families the roles may be less clearly defined which could cause conflict. Also the tendency of the parents in larger families to rely on the older children to help with the younger children could affect their relationships.

Even though the family constellation values do influence relationships, “it seems unlikely that the qualities of sibling relationships are exclusively” (Furman and Buhrmester) determined by them. What other variables have an impact on the interpersonal relationships of siblings?

Parents’ relationships with each child have an effect on sibling relationships (Sneddon). Often parents relationships are very different with each child in a family. Children need to be treated uniquely according to their individual needs, ages, and their personalities. For example, parents may restrict one sibling more often who has a tendency to display more difficult personality traits than another sibling who is easy-going. “Parents behave in distinctly different ways with each child partly because the children themselves are so different from one another” (Merrell). Children are extremely sensitive to differences in treatment from a remarkably early age. A mother may play with and delight in her adorable newborn but find her demanding and uncooperative two year old harder to deal with. The older child will daily witness the tenderness and affection that the mother shows to her younger child. This could cause the older sibling to ve more argumentative and uncooperative as he/she seeks attention from the mother. Children sometimes unconsciously feel that bad attention is better than no attention. Resentment towards the younger sibling may build up that could effect their future relationship. In this respect, parents need to be careful how they treat their children, especially when other children are around, so that no partiality can be detected. They need to make a conscious effort to spend equal time with each child.

Parenting styles can also effect how siblings relate to each other. Researcher and sociologist, Diana Baumrind Ph.D., of the University of California at Berkeley identified three distinctive parenting styles that cover the range of what mow American parents use: authoritarian, permissive and authoritative. These correlate very closely with the tree parenting styles researched by Michael Popkin, author of Active Parenting, although he named them: autocratic, permissive and democratic, respectively.

The studies show that in the households with authoritarian or autocratic parents, the parents dictate to the children what is expected. In these types of households the parents have absolute control and the children usually acquiesce out of fear of punishment. Albert Bandura believes that punishment of children is often related to the parents moods or feelings at the time, not the child’s behavior, accordingly punishment is inconsistent and often lowers the child’s self-esteem. The authoritative/autocratic style of parenting may cause the children to bond together against the parents. In contrast to this are the permissive households. In these households the children are allowed to direct their behavior and sometimes even direct the parents’ behavior. Children have no limits since these parents believe that children will learn from experience, thus there is little order or routines in the house.

It seems as if one of my students was raised this way. When her mother breezed into my classroom during parent/teacher conferences, she was all bubbly and happy. This surprised me, as her daughter had just failed my class. I asked her if she saw her daughter’s report card and she replied, “No. I asked her for it, but she didn’t want to show it to me.” Astounded by this lack of parental control and with the thought, “Who is the mother here?” going through my head, I suggested we take a walk to the guidance department. When we obtained her report card, I discovered why the daughter did not want the mother to see the report card. She had failed every class but one.

In authoritative or democratic house holds parents teach children that they need to respect the property and rights of others. Teaching respect is not always easy. Respect is not given unless it is constantly received. These parents also teach rules and responsibilities along with rights and limits. They let their children know that they will listen to them and compromise where they can. They encourage cooperation between the children and suggest that the children talk out the problems to resolve differences. They support children’s natural empathy by having them try to see their siblings’ point of view. Researchers Denise Daniels and Robert Plomin suggest that siblings who have more say in the family descisions, and better peer and sibling relationships, such as reported in democratic/authoritative households, also show better psychological adjustment. Researchers Larson and Richards believe that this style of parenting fosters the best interpersonal relationships among the children.

I would agree with this and suggest that parents think about their parenting style, and work together to achieve this style. I would further suggest that one of the most important aspects of dealing with children, besides love, is to present a united front before the children. If parents do not agree on some issue then they should discuss this between themselves outside the children’s hearing, and reach an amicable decision or compromise. When children do not see their parents as united in child raising they very quickly learn to play one parent against another. They will seek out the parent who is more likely to give in. In this respect it is also important for parents to consider rules in their household carefully and then stick with them, regardless of a child’s whining or nagging. I am not suggesting that parents should not learn and grow with their children and be uncompromising, rather tat it is important for parents to set boundaries so that their children feel secure in their environment.

Furman and Buhrmester felt that the diagram below represented the variables that appear to be the “primary determinants of sibling relationship qualities”. After my own research I would tend to agree though I have added a few factors as well (i.e. those in parenthesis). All of these categories have the potential to interact thus having casual influences on interpersonal relationships.

Family Constellation
Variables
Relative Age
Age Difference
Sex sib-sex Pattern
Family Size
Birth Order
Sibling Relationship
(Birth of a New Baby)
Warmth/Closeness
Relative power/status
Conflict
Rivalry
Characteristics of Individual Children
Parent- Child
Cognitive
(Parenting Styles)
Social
Qualities of Relationships
Personality
Management of Sibling Relationships

The “birth order” constellation variable noted I believe has relevance only as it applies to family roles and the timing a child is born in consideration of improved or regressed family socio-economic status.

Even after examining the family constellation variables, parent relationships and parenting styles there are still further things that need to be looked at that effect interpersonal relationships between siblings.

For example, many societal changes that have occurred in the last hundred years or so, and have accelerated since World War Tow may be giving the sibling relationship greater relevance: divorce and remarriage, geographic mobility, and maternal employment.

Divorce and remarriage affects the relationships of siblings. Since 1900 the rate of divorce has increased more than sevenfold. It is predicted that by the year 2000 the most common type of family will be “remarried” families. Sometimes the effect on sibling relationships is a strengthening of the bond between those from the same biological family. Although each child experiences his or her parents’ divorce in their own unique way, the siblings confront together the trauma of divorce, dislocation and, often, remarriage. Experts disagree whether this makes siblings closer or drives them apart, but they do agree that the sibling relationship is forever affected by these traumatic experiences.

Women joining the work force in unprecedented numbers since World War II also affects the sibling relationship. “It is projected that eighty percent of all women in the United States will be working outside the home by the year 2000". Women’s employment has increased dramatically due to the economic factors. More children are being asked to manage their siblings before mom gets home from work. They often turn to each other instead of parents for support. This can also influence sibling spacing. If women intend to return to their careers they often have the children closer together. “Narrow spacing can force children into contact, dependence, and competition and heightens opportunities for mutual influence”.

Fortunately, “being cared for by adults who have not jeopardized the child’s life of physical integrity, and who are loving and nurturing, facilitates his or her efforts to overcome and master the trauma” (Sonit et al). This is the hope of foster placement.

Foster parents are a special breed of people who are willing to not only raise their own children (if they have them,) but other people’s children as well.

There are man and women who make the world better just by being the kind of people they are. They have the gift of kindness or courage or loyalty or integrity. It really matters very little whether they are behind the whell of a truck or running a business.

James A Garfield.
(Canfield et al 1997)

To be a good foster parent is a time consuming proposition. Often necessary time that foster parents have to spend with the foster child to help him or her deal with the situation may be time taken away from their own children. Additionally, visits to the psychologist, counselor pediatrician, social workers, family court, and biological family are often necessary which further takes time away from the foster parents’ own biological children. This lack of parent availability then could have an effect on sibling relationships.

The adjustments that foster children make when being placed in foster care often include a honeymoon period when everything is wonderful, and then a testing period when the child pushes the limits to see if the foster family is committed to them. These tests and trials have an effect on everyone living in the foster home. The relationship between the siblings can be altered by the arrival of a foster child due to these early adjustments. Authors such as Kathlyn Gay and Nancy Millichap Davies seek to explain these adjustments and other issues in their books on foster care. They both offer a history of foster care and examine a variety of today’s placement issues including adoption.

Another author, Geraldine Blomquist, examined the psychological aspects of children in foster care. She felt that foster children often brought with them a lack of trust. “These feelings and subsequent behavior serve to keep people at a distance. The fragile psyche protects itself by not allowing anyone to get close enough to hurt” (Blomquist). Yet, the effect that this psychological aspect has on establishing sibling relationships in a foster home has yet to be examined.

Foster children are sometimes physically and intellectually below normal for their ages which can cause problems at school. These problems too have to be dealt with by the foster parents. Author Lynne Steyer examined the most common school problems of foster children. She noted that some of these were failing to do homework, falling behind academically, cheating, lying and disrupting class.

As a teacher I believe that I should be notified if a child is in a foster home to prevent or circumvent potential problems. Inservices for teachers could be held to help them learn how to deal with the problems that foster children can present. Teachers could be taught to recognize children that seem to be at risk to identify to counselors for appropriate services. At these inservices issues of privacy can also be discussed as a reminder to professionals of their obligation in that regard. One incident, that pertains to protecting the privacy of children to the extent of hampering the teacher’s ability to work with a child, occurring during my first year of teaching. I assigned a worksheet for homework that dealt with careers titled, “Interviewing Your Parents”. One student, who sometimes talked back in my class but generally complied and did his work said, “I’m going to interview our security guard at school.” I told him that was unacceptable since the assignment was to interview his parents to find out what they had to deal with on a daily basis at work. I should have picked up that he was dealing with a problem that I was unaware of, but in my inexperience, I thought the child was just being belligerent. He insisted that he was going to interview someone else and I insisted that the assignment was very specific. The students shoved his books off his desk and stormed out of my room. Later, after speaking to a counselor, I was aghast to find that his mother had died in a car accident the previous year and that his father had died of a drug overdose the previous summer. The student had been a ward of the state in foster care since then. Had I been made aware of his family situation the entire incident could have been avoided. Now I am very careful to use “parents or guardians” on all my worksheets and in all my directives. Unfortunately, I learned that too late for this child. The fragile relationship that had built up crumbled and was never repaired. The child shut down, refusing to do any work the rest of the semester.

Now I am an advocate at my school that all such relevant information should be shared with the teachers. It is an uphill battle since many counselors feel that it infringes on the privacy of a student who share sensitive family situation information. I believe that teachers need to be treated as professionals who are aware of the sensitivity of certain issues. Certainly we need to be trusted with information that will enable us to better teach a child. Not only can the foster child’s learning ve detrimentally affected by problems he or she can cause in a classroom, but also the learning for all students. Additionally, if I, as a teacher, am made aware of the situation, I might be inclined to be more compassionate and go the extra mile for a child that is misbehaving in my class when I can understand the reason behind his or her actions.

Authors Albert Solnit, Barbara Nordhaus and Ruth Lord examined child placement issues for foster children in their book, When Home is No Haven. Dr. Albert Solnit later collaborated with Joseph Goldstein, Sonja Goldstein and the late Anna Freud to examine this same issue in The Best Interests Of The Child: the Least Detrimental Alternative. Yet, they examined the issues of foster families only as a possibility for placement if children needed to be removed from their home. The perspective that they examined this issue was in regards to the best interest of foster children.

As yet, however, very little research has been done in the United States on the general qualities of the sibling relationship when a foster child arrives and is incorporated into the family system. A study done in Scotland by Diana Part in 1993 examined the attitudes towards foster children by the birth children. In her study she surveyed seventy-five biological children of foster parents in relation to their feelings towards foster children. Most of the birth children interviewed reported that they enjoyed, or at least tolerated having foster children in their homes. Many of the respondents in that study reported that despite all the problems that occur when incorporating a foster child in their home, they appreciated more their own family as a result. It also gave them the awareness of the difficulties other children had to cope with. This was reported in Adoption and Fostering magazine in the United States but did not seem to lead to any similar investigations here.

One researcher, Janet Ames, did examen the specific impact on birth children in a household that fostered children with sever learning disabilities. Her research indicated that the specific family constellation areas of roles, sibling access and gender were the greatest determinants in her study. Yet, her research was specific to families that only dealt with foster children with learning disabilities and not to foster families in general.

I found many researchers who dealt with the issue of whether or not siblings should be kept together in one foster home while in foster care. An article in “Child Welfare” magazine in 1988 urged placement caseworkers to pay greater attention to siblings in foster care. A study done by Ilene Staff and Edith Fein explored factors that related to the outcomes of siblings being placed together. Researcher Maureen Smith also explored this same issue by surveying both foster parents and caseworkers. The results of this survey indicated that half the foster parents felt that fostering siblings together was much more difficult while the other half of the parents felt that it was easier when siblings were together. The caseworkers for these same foster parents were also surveyed. They believed that there was little or no difference in fostering siblings together versus apart. It is interesting that caseworker’s beliefs differed from the foster parents’, yet they were not the ones doing the foster parenting.

Author Lynn Loar examined the issue of parental visits to foster children from the perspective of how to make them successful while author Judith Masson examined this same issue in relation to maintaining biological family ties with children in foster care.

The author that came closest to considering sibling relationships in foster care, Marjut Kosonen, examined the relationship between foster children and the biological children of the foster family, but from the point of view of the effects on the foster child rather than on the sibling relationships. She basically examined the factors that made the development and maintenance of the relationship more difficult. These dealt with the baggage that the foster child brings to the relationship, for example, past incidences of child abuse and neglect. She found that it was difficult for foster children to enter into a relationship of trust with the biological children in a foster family due to their past experiences. Additionally, the biological children in a foster home found it difficult to relate to the attitudes and problems of the foster children.

Sixty-two percent of parents who reported role changes noted that their children’s roles seemed to be more clearly defined since the arrival of their foster child. This would seem to fit into researcher Susan Merrell’s idea of deindentification as a way for children to separate and define themselves. Perhaps these children’s roles were emphasized as a way for the children in the family to let the foster child(ren) know that this particular role was already taken and that he or she needed to find their own role in the family. I wonder if a possible application to foster care placement could be to determine the foster child’s role in their biological family to make sure that he or she is not placed in a home where this role is already clearly assumed.

This heightening of sibling’s roles could have a negative or positive influence on the child who is the “family clown” could start to tease and joke around more, to the point of being annoying, thus irritating other siblings in the family. This in fact, was a phenomenon reported by thirteen percent of the respondents. If a child who is “the responsible one” tries to become even more responsible, to the extent of being domineering, this could also negatively effect the relationship with his or her sibling(s). On the other hand, if the child becomes more responsible this could have a positive effect. If, fore example, a child becomes more reliable in doing his/her fair share of the family chores, this could enhance the relationship.

Thirteen percent of the families reported that their own children suddenly took on the role of instigators of trouble. The parents felt that this would have been a way for their won children to draw more attention to themselves when the foster parents were involved with the foster child’s problems. This change was to one reported to have the most negative effect on the sibling relationship, since the other sibling resented this role change and had a difficult time dealing with it. This often resulted in harsh words and fights between siblings.

It was difficult to rate and find the correct percentages for question number five on “sibling access”. I am not sure that all the parents understood the question. This could be the reason for the thirty-eight percent that reported no change and the thirteen percent that gave no response.

The parents who responded that they have noted an increase in access seem to relate this to the times that the foster child was visiting their biological parents. During those time the foster parents often took their own children out to spend some special time with them thus increasing the number of shared experiences.

The number of parents that reported a decrease in sibling access, thirty-one percent, was only slightly higher than the number who reported a positive increase in sibling access, twenty-five percent. The parents that noted a decrease in shared experiences related this to shared experiences of the family as a whole and not just to the siblings. They attributed this decrease to the additional number of children in the family making it nearly impossible to do as many things together. It was also noted several times that, when the foster child was an infant, it was more difficult for the family to fo out as often. (This is understandable and is not specific to only foster children.) The families did make an effort to have fun experiences in their homes to make up for this. In consideration of this, perhaps foster care agencies could provide foster families with a booklet filled with fun family activities that do not cost a lot of money. This would possibly increase sibling access while including the foster children. Another application could be foster family picnics and holiday parties provided by social service agencies. These could increase the time that families share together.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents reported that their own children are not “left out” due to incorporating a foster child into their home. Their own children interact as often together (reportably sometimes more often) as they did before the new arrival. Each of these parents said that they made a conscious effort to ensure that their own children are not left out. This causes me to speculate that their children’s shared experiences are due more to the intervention of their parents rather than to a propensity in the sibling relationship.

The nineteen percent of the parents who indicated that their won children were lest out as a result of the foster child offered several explanations for this. Some indicated that their own children were left out due to their foster child’s difficult behavior, there were many times that their family could not do things together. I suspect that they were referring to being left out of family situations in general as the parent dealt with the behaviors. Some parents indicated that due to the amount of counseling and other services the foster child required, their own children were often left out. This was noted in chapter two by researchers Blomquist, Lopez and Goldstein as a possible problem. Again I feel that they were not referring to the sibling relationship but instead were referring to the parental one. That question would need to be further clarified in future studies. Perhaps the ambiguity of the question is also why nineteen percent of the parents did not respond to it.

It was hypothesized that the effects of the spacing of siblings would be negatively influenced to a slight degree. This study, however, showed that seventy-five percent of the parents reported no change in the spacing effects in sibling relationships. It must be noted that, in reviewing the spacing differences in these families, only one family had inserted a foster child between biological children. With this one exception, no family had a different spacing between children as a result of their foster children. It is interesting to note that at least half of the respondents agreed with the theorized effects of spacing children by researchers Bank and Kahn. That closeness in age is predictive of a closer sibling relationship as a result of the things the children would have in common. This is the theory that I presented in my questionnaire. Yet, eighteen percent of the respondents indicated that they found the opposite is true in their family. The children who were closer in age tend to fight more and have a poorer relationship that the ones further apart in age. This finding agrees with the study done by Buhrmester and Furman in 1985 as well as wit researcher Pamela Sneddon.

My own experiences paralleled both studies. M y children’s relationship was dependent on their ages. When my boys, who are three years apart, were very young, they were very close. They played together, interacted positively and often shared friends and experiences. Then as my oldest hit about age ten, they tended to fight more and their closeness in age seemed to lead to more conflict. Yet, now, as teenagers they tend to get along better because of their shared interests. I wonder if all studies on this particular family constellation area are dependent not so much on the space between children’s ages, but the actual age the children were at the time of the study.

This would seem to be consistent with the contentions provided by researchers J. Goldstein, Sonit, S. Goldstein and Freud. In their book, The Best Interests of the Child, they state:

Unlike adults, children change constantly, from one stage of growth to another. They change with regard to their understanding of events, their tolerance for frustration and their needs for and demands on parents care and support, stimulation, guidance, and restraint. These demands vary as the child matures and is capable of independence. Since none of the child’s needs remains stable, what serves her developmental interests at one level may be detrimental to her progression at another level.

It would seem reasonable, then, to assume that many of the family constellation theories, including the one about sibling spacing, may be dependent on the age or the children at the time of research.

Fifty-six percent of the parents responded that question number eight, the effects of a new baby in the household, does not apply in their household. I found that interesting since ninety-four percent of the respondents had a foster child who did, indeed, hold the position of a baby or the youngest in the family. I can only surmise that the question of a “new baby position” held the significance of a newborn of infant in the parents’ minds, so it never occurred to them that the youngest in a family is usually considered the “baby”. I had hypothesized that this area would show the greatest change and was surprised when the percentages were not higher.

Thirteen percent of the respondents indicated that, indeed their foster child did hold the place of a new baby, and that the change they saw as a result of this was positive. It has resulted in the biological “baby” becoming more responsible and acting less babyish. It brought a degree of closeness to the siblings as they nurtured the young foster child.

Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicated a problem of jealousy when the foster child arrived. It was reported by several parents that the biological baby started acting more babyish and whining more often which resulted in conflict between the siblings.

From my own experiences and those of my friends, I thought that this percentage would be much higher. Often a new baby in a family has a dramatic effect of jealousy and anger by the older siblings. When one considers that children experience events as happening solely in relation to their own persons this is understandable. Thus they may experience, the addition of a foster child, who now holds the position of the family “baby” as an act of parental hostility. In fact, one foster parent reported that her own three-year old daughter started pushing and biting their younger, male foster child. To the mother’s dismay this continued for three months. She was very concerned about her daughter’s actions. It was also causing problems between her and her older siblings. They started yelling at the three-year old and comforting their two-year old foster brother which led to more antagonism. The foster mother was very concerned about the stress that this was causing in her household and almost decided that they had to give her foster son up. Finally, she sought the advice of her pediatrician who indicated that he felt it was in the pest interest of her daughter to keep the boy in the family and help her learn to deal with him positively. Although she indicated that some of the tension has eased up in the last four months she still wondered if she made the right decision.

One foster mother reported that her biological child refused to give up the position of “baby” in the family even though her foster child was six years younger than her biological child. Her child and her foster child argued about who was the “baby” continuously until it was decided that they could share the position of “baby”. I found this to be an interesting compromise, although was not sure what it entailed.

While only nineteen percent of the respondents noted a change in birth order traits, each of them indicated the same change: the birth order traits that their biological children exhibited before and after the arrival of the foster child(ren) intensified. I would have to again relate that to sibling deidentification as it almost seems like a “digging in” so that they will not be supplanted in their role. I believe that this is more a function relevant to family roles theory rather than birth order theory. It is interesting to note that thirty-eight percent of the respondents believe that their children follow exactly the pattern of birth order traits listed in the survey exactly while twenty-five percent believe that their family does not fit these traits at all.

The number of biological children found in a home with foster children was fairly consistent. This is not to suggest that this number represents an average number of biological children in most foster homes. One has to take into consideration the condition of my survey, that “participants must have at least two biological or adopted children living in their home.”

The number of male biological children was more than double that of female biological children. The average number of female foster children however was more than quadr