(This post builds on Kathy’s original Discipline post from last weekend.)

I read stacks of books about stepfamily dynamics when my relationship with G looked like it was going to be serious, and pretty much every book I read said to take things slowly and to follow the biological parents’ lead on parenting.

The word stepmom is a funny word. It has the word “mom” in it, and in my case at least, I don’t really feel like the word “mom” belongs there. I think of myself more as an adjunct parent. I’m an extra helping hand, and extra person to love the kids and to look out for them, but I don’t see myself as a mom figure. As my grandma pointed out delightedly a few years ago, being a stepparent is a little like being a grandparent. You can be deeply involved in the kids’ lives, and love them and enjoy them, and even take on a lot of responsibility if you want to, but at the root of it, if things get rough, you can call their mom and dad to step in and handle things, and at the end of the day, their mom and dad are the ones who set the tone for how they are raised and who have the final say.

So when I moved in with G and saw that the kids were never punished and that they were allowed to swear, but that they were also friendly, considerate, sensitive, empathetic and kind, I was pretty mystified. (Shouldn’t kids who swear and aren’t punished be scary and dangerous and wild?) I didn’t really know how G and Kathy were doing what they were doing parenting-wise. It was unlike anything I’d ever seen or imagined. So when I found out there was a book about how to do it, I bought it and read it. It wasn’t so much that I agreed with it as soon as I read it — I didn’t object to it, but I’d never heard of not punishing kids — not giving time outs or loss of privileges to help steer them in the right direction. Parenting without those techniques seemed alien. I knew that I needed to follow G and Kathy’s lead, though, since they were the parents. And also, the kids were great. Better than great — they were amazing. So clearly, what G and Kathy were doing was working.

It wasn’t easy to pick up right away. The more I live with and practice this style of parenting — based on mutual respect and on understanding that everyone’s needs need to be met (including parents) — the more I realize that this definitely is the way I would raise a child that I had the final say about. And I feel rich and lucky to be part of a family system where I could see this in practice on a daily basis for years and learn through immersion.

I think one of the trickiest paths to navigate between mom and step-mom is this issue of how to “discipline” the children. Jill and G and I are extraordinarily lucky in this regard because we all have very similar notions of what and how much “discipline” should be doled out.

Basically, the answer — for all three of us — is hardly ever. When Chris was just an infant, G and I attended a series of Parent Effectiveness Training classes. I cannot recommend this methodology highly enough and I attribute almost all of our successes at parenting to what we learned in those classes.

Here’s an excerpt from Thomas Gordon’s web site:

At the very root of Dr. Gordon’s parenting philosophy is a belief that children aren’t bad or mischievious; they simply behave in ways that satisfy their particular needs at the moment. A baby cries because he is hungry; a four-year-old sticks her hands into a can of paint and spills it on the carpet because she wants to play with the paint, to explore; a sixteen-year-old comes home later than you feel is safe because he feels a need to be with his friends.Children have the right to meet their needs, but parents do too. It is in meeting these conflicting needs that most parent/child relationships get into trouble. Some parents insist on obedience from their children, so they get their needs met at the expense of the children meeting theirs’. Other parents, wishing to spare their children any hurt and aggravation, give in and let their children get their way, but then the parents suffer. Either way someone is left feeling resentful of the other. It is this constant cycle of power struggles and the subsequent pent-up resentments that result that slowly begin to erode the parent/child relationship.But it doesn’t have to be that way. There is a third option: Both parents and children can get their needs met…

We have a link to the P.E.T. book on our blog, and I strongly urge anyone who isn’t familiar with this method of conflict resolution to check it out. Luckily Jill, who hadn’t read it before, read it as soon as she moved in with G. More happily still, it turns out she has the same kind of fundamental beliefs that G and I have, so our conflicts about discipline have been almost non-existant.

But what happens if that’s not the case? What happens if the person who comes into the family later than the biological parents absolutely has a different attitude towards how children should be raised than the original father and mother?

As I’ve dated over the years since my divorce, this has been something that my spidey-sense has definitely been attuned to. If I found a mate who was marriage-worthy, how would his version of children and their behavior fit into the mix? Is he someone who really believes in serious disciplinary action for mis-behavior? I have to confess… even the term “mis-behavior” sets my red flags waving. In my experience, kids rarely actually purposefully “mis-behave.” Sure they’re going to annoy the crap out of you, and sure there’s going to be conflict. I’m TOTALLY not dismissing the ongoing fact of how difficult it is for any number of bodies to occupy the same space for an extended period of time without getting seriously in each others’ way.

But “mis-behaving,” to me, is a flagrant, conscious act that goes directly against a known requirement of behavior. It means lying, stealing, doing something that is known and obviously against the rules. And, truthfully, my kids do extremely little of any of that. They really don’t. And mostly I attribute that to a couple of things: a realistic set of rules, a lot of talking about why those rules are in place, how some behavior affects me negatively on a personal basis, and what really should happen when things get out of control.

I think a realistic set of rules is a vitally important component to discipline. Basically, I’ve whittled down the hard and fast rules of the kids’ lives to be (1) no lying and (2) if you ever get in trouble and can’t get home without endangering yourself, you call and I’ll pick you up without getting mad. Another friend has a set that I think I’ll also adopt: No pregnancies, no addictions, no lying. That’s pretty much it.

I know that when I grew up, the first time I broke a rule and didn’t immediately die, I realized that I could break any of them with impugnity. My mom imposed many rules, based on her fears, that magnified in complexity and scope the older I got. The reality of my maturity, my track record of being a good kid, none of that was taken into account. The rules multiplied faster than I could follow them, and when I became consistently deemed guilty of breaking rules I’d never even known about, eventually I just quit trying to keep up.

This was a problem. Because one or two of those rules could’ve actually helped save me from getting into some scrapes. But the rules became external to reality. They were a power struggle between the authority figure and myself and as soon as I realized that that was the game, I just quit playing and started off on my own.

For my own kids, my entire goal is to make sure they can navigate adolescence and young adulthood without seriously crashing and burning. My first priority is to keep communication intact, because I remember all too well how it felt to have no one to turn to except my equally confused and misguided friends.

This goal includes parents and children having respect for each other. They need to respect me and my reality. Which means I have to be ready to give my reasons for feeling a certain way from day to day. Which may change. And I know this is controversial but I believe it’s very very true: sometimes the small rules change based on how we’re feeling. Being quiet on a day when I have a headache is not the same as being quiet on a day when I feel great. So “you must always be quiet” is not a rule that’s consistent. Which means I have to be real to the kids; and they have to understand that I’m a person, like they are, and my needs change.

And it goes both ways. Sometimes a youngster can do certain things, and sometimes they can’t. There must be a fluidity and realism in how you set your boundaries. To “discipline” a young child who is crying in the supermarket because he is tired is unfair and cruel. And it’s a completely different situation from when that same child is yelling in your ear while you’re talking on the phone to your mother in law. One situation negates the child’s reality; the other negates yours. The response needs to be different based on a variety of factors.

And rarely, in my experience, does “mis-behavior” and “discipline” ever really come into play.

So that’s where I come from and I’m sure there are many people who have strong differences of opinion and will think I’m a bad parent because of these statements. Maybe I’m lucky that my kids really are basically good kids; or maybe they became basically good kids because I treat them as such. That is not anything I can tell you for certain. What I am grateful about is that Jill, G and I all seem to share this core philosophy.

But. What if that wasn’t the case?

For me, if I found a potential partner who was heavily into the “Spare the rod and spoil the child” philosophy, I’d have to say I’d think twice before bringing him into the household. I don’t think we’d match on other levels either and that would not bode well. So wildly differing child rearing philosophies is, for me, a deal breaker.

But say you do have a big gap in how you think the children should be raised. How do step-moms and moms, specifically, deal with this issue if they have wildly differing philosophies?

Here’s what I would suggest:

1. Try to agree on what the fundamental “rules” are as soon as possible. Maybe write them out, or — preferably — discuss them together in person. The sooner you can understand each others’ limits, the better. If one of you is rule-heavy and the other is rule-light, then you should know this as early as possible. It also helps you understand the other person. Rules come from our own childhood and upbringing. Knowing a little bit about the other person’s family of origin and how they were raised will help you in navigating a lot of these dicey issues.
2. See that new standards may actually be a good thing. Does the step-mom have an absolute aversion to elbows on table but you, the mom, have always been too tired to actually bring up the issue? Think about it… maybe you can help out and enforce better table manners at your house too. Assuming you don’t have deep religious beliefs that bad table manners are actually to be encouraged, this is a good thing and together you can work to improve the childrens’ social graces.
3. Discuss what the other person’s philosophy is in terms of disciplining. If the kids are young does the other woman advocate time outs, withdrawing of privileges, physical punishment, or other consequences? Try to get as honest as possible here. And know that this is most likely going to be an onion-peeling exercise, not something that’s going to be accomplished in one conversation. This all is deep, core stuff. Tread with infinite care and respect for the other person in these areas.
4. If possible, map out scenarios and see how you’d each react. Jill and I, in many areas, are geared very differently with relation to our stress levels. Some things that drive her crazy don’t bother me much, and vice versa. Learning the map of landmines is helpful for everyone concerned.
5. Finally, if you find you are very different and can’t reconcile your approaches, I’d have to say that the biological parents’ views should prevail. I’m sorry to say this to you step-parents, but in this one I think the vote of the biological parents should be weighted a little more heavily. If there is a schism I would advocate that everyone try to work out their points of view most fully, with lots of respectful listening on all parts. The goal is to get some working methodology in this area that provides a consistency for the kids. What you don’t want is to set up is a situation where the kids figure out the loopholes and potentially fall through the cracks of both households. Kids just don’t need to work that hard to grow up and learning at an early age how to work the system is just bad news for everyone.

Bottom line: be fair. Do unto others. Both in your relationship with the kids and with your relationship to the other household. Do you want them undermining everything you’re trying to do? No. So to the extent that you can avoid compromising your own value system, don’t undermine what they’re doing either. Do you want them to use leniency to buy favoritism? No. So don’t go easy just so the kids will love you more. It doesn’t work that way and we all know it. Be honest and real and open to other possibilities; because you’d like that for yourself. It’s golden rule time. Apply it without exception.

I think this is one of the most emotionally laden aspects of co-parenting there is. I would love to hear other people’s stories, especially if and how you’ve navigated a course towards working things out.