Abstract
This qualitative study examined the nature of partnerships among 28 rural low-income mothers who experienced partnership transitions across three waves of annual interviews. Guided by lens of uncertainty and boundary ambiguity theory, the authors specifically explored (a) how low-income mothers in rural communities experience partnership transitions over time and (b) how rural, low-income mothers create stability for themselves and their children in the midst of partnership transitions. The narratives of rural, low-income mothers not only featured the uncertainty, unreliability, and instability of their lives but also underscored their resilience and ability to adapt to an impoverished environment. Their decisions to enter into, stay, and leave partnerships, in most cases, were part of their flexible responses to the structural constraints imposed by unemployment, lack of resources, and rural contexts.
The nature and meaning of intimate relationships have changed dramatically over the past few decades which have witnessed consistently high divorce rates, decreasing marriage rates, and increasing rates of cohabitation and childbirth outside marriage (Cherlin, 2010). Recent research has documented that childbearing outside of marriage is increasing, especially among low-income individuals (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Gibson-Davis, 2011; Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005). Low-income women with children are also more likely to cohabit than marry (Cherlin, 2010; Graefe & Lichter, 2007); these cohabiting relationships, however, tend to be less stable, with half dissolving within 1 year after the birth of a child (Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, 2007). Despite the high likelihood that these intimate relationships will end, the desire for intimacy continues to be high (Sassler, 2010), as even low-income cohabiters prefer to raise children within the context of marriage (Sassler & Cunningham, 2008). Consequently, it is not uncommon today for low-income adults with children to experience partnering, repartnering, or serial cohabitation (Sassler, 2010) following relationship dissolution.
Despite these significant trends, little is known about the partnership transitions of low-income individuals. Scholars have examined why stable partnerships have declined among low-income couples but have failed, for a variety of reasons, to capture the dynamic nature of partnership transitions. First, past studies have focused on partnership status (singlehood, cohabitation, and marriage) and single transitions between statuses, rather than on relationship trajectories over longer time spans. Roy, Buckmiller, and McDowell (2008) argued that focusing on marital or residential statuses obscures the importance of subtle nuances in relationships. Second, the boundaries of what constitutes a cohabiting relationship are ambiguous. Stanley (2009) found that many cohabiters did not actively decide to “cohabit,” but rather “slide” into a situation that could be called cohabitation. Given the complexities of partnerships, Osborne and McLanahan (2007) argued that, to understand partnership stability/instability among low-income couples, it was essential to consider the entire spectrum of serious dating relationships and not just those defined by residential status, which is often uncertain. Finally, most studies on partnership instability have been based on urban, low-income populations and, thus, have not examined the potential influence of geographic context. There is evidence that the greatest increase in cohabiting households with children in the past decade has occurred in rural areas (O’Hare, Manning, Porter, & Lyons, 2009), where child rearing without marriage is generally more stigmatized than in urban areas (Duncan, 1999). Focusing on these deficiencies in our knowledge, this study investigates the experiences of partnership transitions among low-income mothers residing in rural communities.
Romantic Relationships Among Low-Income Women
The findings of previous studies that have examined romantic relationships among low-income women are inconsistent. Nelson (2005, 2006) pointed to the influence of the Standard North American Family (SNAF) ideology (Smith, 1993) to explain the strong desire for romantic relationships among poor women. SNAF is a traditional family model consisting of a legally married, heterosexual couple raising children, with the male acting as the primary income earner. However, highlighting the significant disparity between the SNAF ideology and the realities of low-income women, Cherlin (2006) argued that low-income women might be reticent in seeking a traditional family structure, which reestablishes male dominance. Rather, these women may aspire to other family models that emphasize mutual support, companionship, and reciprocity.
Studies that have focused on the experiences of low-income African American women suggest that the “less-traditional” life course paths of African American women represent adaptations intended to minimize the daily risks and uncertainties of poverty. Burton, Obeidallah, and Allison (1996) argued that traditional developmental templates were based on White, suburban youth and were inadequate for describing the experiences of low-income African American adolescents. Specifically, in light of limited life options, low-income adolescents may move quickly from childhood to adulthood, use different strategies for coping with external realities and pressures, and experience parenthood as an opportunity to foster individual growth, family connection, and cultural heritage (Burton, 1990). Burton and Tucker (2009) underscored how the lack of stable employment, limited formal support, and the need to ensure personal and family stability influence the romantic relationships of low-income women. The initiation of romantic relationships among poor African American women “is rooted in a complex interplay between new economic and resource realities; changing conceptualizations of appropriate gender-specific behavior; and changing society-wide beliefs about the nature, value, and function of marriage” (Burton & Tucker, 2009, p. 140).
Other studies also have suggested that the disconnect between child rearing and romantic relationships among low-income mothers is best explained by social constraints such as the lack of economic resources and the shortage of suitable marriageable partners (Sano & Manoogian, 2010; Burton & Tucker, 2009; Cherlin, Cross-Barnet, Burton, & Garrett-Peters, 2008). Low-income mothers may respond to the external pressures of poverty by negotiating partnerships as a strategy to gain housing stability (Author citation; Clark, Burton, & Flippen, 2011) and recruiting nonresident biological fathers and/or intimate partners to maximize resource support for children (Roy & Burton, 2007). Such explanations for the wide variety in romantic and marital relationships among low-income women may also reflect a shift in societal perceptions and acceptance of relationship realities. Low-income mothers may perceive greater acceptance of childbearing outside of marriage, fear the negative outcomes of divorce, and prefer to find a suitable partner after childbearing (Edin & Kefalas, 2005; Edin, Kefalas, & Reed, 2004; Gibson-Davis, Edin, & McLanahan, 2005). Finally, gendered expectations and behaviors in partnerships may be less clearly defined today (Cherlin, 2006), and low-income mothers may have new interpretations as to how they function within intimate partnerships (Burton & Tucker, 2009).
The Influence of Rural Context on Low-Income Mothers’ Partnerships
The current literature provides only a partial picture of low-income women’s partnerships in different geographic contexts, that is, urban, metro, or rural areas. The economic outlook of rural low-income mothers is shaped by both gender and location. In the United States, the highest rates of poverty are experienced by children of rural, single mothers who are increasingly heads of households, employed in low-skill jobs that provide little security (Mattingly & Bean, 2010). The rural labor markets in which these women find themselves offer lower wages, reduced work time, fewer benefits, and limited opportunities for training and advancement (O’Hare, 2007). Rural, low-income mothers in romantic relationships are more likely to take on traditional gender expectations, viewing their role as mothers as being paramount and expecting partners to become primary breadwinners (Pruitt, 2008).
Single and partnered rural women seeking economic stability through employment face explicit constraints. The rural context, generally characterized by lower availability and accessibility of services, increases the challenges to women who need job training, quality and affordable child care, reliable transportation, and options for education (Rural Policy Research Institute, 1999). As a consequence, rural women and their families may be particularly dependent on informal support provided by kin in the form of shared housing (Sano & Manoogian, 2010; Nelson & Smith, 1999), access to meals (Sano & Manoogian), and free child care (Smith, 2006), and so on. Nelson (2006) found that rural, low-income mothers, particularly those without partners, relied on informal support networks, although the level of support from rural kin networks was lower than popularly believed.
Theoretical Frameworks: Focusing on Resilience, Economic Uncertainty, and Boundary Ambiguity
Coping with the precarious balance of family well-being and lack of economic resources, low-income mothers operate within a context characterized by instability, elasticity, and change. Our lens focuses on how rural mothers experience poverty and negotiate their family contexts, specifically in relation to the formation and dissolution of romantic partnerships. Two areas of scholarship influence the theoretical frameworks used by this study. First, we adopt the lens of uncertainty, which Burton and Tucker (2009) invoked to outline how the lives of low-income women and their romantic relationships are influenced by limitations in employment, resources, and formal and informal support systems. The uncertainty created by poverty shapes the life course of low-income women in a manner that differs from women who experience economic stability (Burton & Tucker, 2009). Such feelings of overall uncertainty (or security) affect how women experience being partners, daughters, mothers, and/or community members in a variety of ways; structural constraints, thus, can lead to highly discrepant outcomes.
Our analysis also incorporates boundary ambiguity theory (Boss, 1980, 2007; Boss & Greenberg, 1984), which features the concept of resilience, that is, “the ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change” (Boss, 2002, p. 75). According to Boss and Greenberg (1984), boundary ambiguity is experienced by families as they undergo transitions such as marriage, divorce, and parenthood. During these transitions, “family members are uncertain in their perceptions about who is in or out of the family and who is performing what roles and tasks within the family system” (Boss & Greenberg, 1984, p. 536). Persistently high levels of boundary ambiguity may increase family stress and erode family resilience (Boss, 2007). Boundary ambiguities are not static, but rather, linked to the temporal rhythms of family life and may fluctuate at various family stages. The complex and dynamic nature of boundary ambiguity, then, underscores the need to closely examine mothers’ intimate relationships, their life course experiences, their financial and emotional independence from and reliance on families of origin, and their attitudes and expectations regarding parenting.
Consistent with the theoretical frameworks used in our analysis, we relied on the mothers’ narratives to define “romantic partnerships,” including marriage, cohabitation, or serious dating relationships irrespective of residential status, which reflected the subjective meaning assigned by the mothers to partnerships, as well as the mothers’ economic vulnerability, and perceived boundaries. Mothers were considered to have experienced a partnership transition or instability if there was any change in the mothers’ partner status during the 3-year period. For example, mothers who became separated or divorced were identified as having a partner status change, as did mothers who started new relationships during the course of the study.
We share a commitment with Burton and her colleagues (Burton, 1990; Burton et al., 1996; Burton & Tucker, 2009, p. 133) to shift our scholarly focus away from “pathology to uncertainty” in order to gain less-biased understanding of how low-income mothers express resilience and adapt to their specific circumstances and contexts. Thus, in this study, we specifically addressed (a) how low-income mothers in rural communities experience partnership transitions over time and (b) how low-income mothers create stability for themselves and their children in the midst of partnership transitions.
Method
Longitudinal data for this study were collected as part of a multistate research collaboration, Rural Families Speak. Beginning in 1998, this national effort focused on the well-being and functioning of rural families in the context of welfare reform and targeted families in nonmetropolitan areas with populations between 2,500 and 19,000 (Bauer, 2003). Criteria for the larger study included (a) being a mother and having at least one child 13 years and younger living at home and (b) having an income below 200% of the poverty threshold. Participants were recruited through programs serving low-income families, including Food Stamp, Head Start, WIC, and Welfare-to-Work programs.
Participants in 17 states were interviewed by a team of researchers using both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Interview protocols and measures covered job histories, current employment, family relationships, partnerships, parenting, health, social support, and community characteristics. Most state research teams conducted one interview per family for each of three waves (years). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and pseudonyms were assigned to participants, family members, and geographic locations.
Sample for This Study
For this study, we used data from 13 states for which three waves of interviews between 1999 and 2003 were completed. Of the 413 mothers interviewed at baseline (Wave 1), 252 participated in all three waves of interviews, resulting in a retention rate of 61%. Retention of participants was particularly difficult as this population frequently changed residences and communication links. To examine how partnerships influence collective well-being and functioning, we focused on the relationships between mothers and their romantic partners, whether married, cohabiting, or living separately. Mothers were identified as falling into one of three partnership trajectory categories over the three waves of data collection: consistently partnered (n = 121; 48%), consistently single without a partner (n = 61; 24%), or experiencing a change/changes in their partner status (n = 70; 28%). Using extreme or deviant sampling as our guide (Patton, 2002), we purposively focused our qualitative analysis on cases that were “information rich because they are unusual or special in some way” (p. 231) and would therefore offer insight into partner instability within a rural context. Thus, we narrowed our sample to 70 mothers who experienced at least one partnership transition across waves.
Each interview transcript ranged in length from 20 to 50 pages, for a total of between 60 and 150 pages for three waves of data for each family. Based on the intensity and richness of the transcripts, we made a strategic decision to focus on a random sample of 28 cases (40%). Theoretical saturation was confirmed by reading mothers’ responses to questions related to partnership in the remaining 42 cases. Additionally, we performed a comparison analysis on our subsample and the remaining 42 cases to see if there were any demographic differences that might be a basis for the emergence of different themes/concerns (e.g., age, income, education, number of children, and partnership trajectories) and found no significant differences. Table 1 summarizes demographic characteristics of the sample. On average, mothers were 27 years old, had one or two children, and had incomes below the federal poverty line. Mothers were non-Hispanic White (78.6%), African American (10.7%), Hispanic/Latino (3.6%), and Native American (3.6%). More than half of the mothers experienced two partnership status changes across three waves. Their educational levels varied, with 39% completing some college.
To further contextualize our sample, we compared the characteristics of mothers who experienced partner status changes (n = 70) with those who were consistently partnered (n = 121) or single (n = 61) across all three waves. The mothers who had experienced partnership changes were significantly younger (M = 27.8 years) than those with consistent partners (M = 30.4 years) and those without partners (M = 31.4 years), had significantly fewer children (M = 1.8) than those with consistent partners (M = 2.8) but did not differ significantly from those with no partners (M = 1.9), and had significantly lower annual incomes (M = 13,219) than those with consistent partners (M = 21,326) but did not differ significantly from those with no partners (M = 10,695). There were no significant differences in mean educational level of the three groups.
Demographic Characteristics of Study Sample at Wave 1 Interview (n = 28)
Based on 2001 federal poverty guideline.
Number of partnership changes across three waves.
Data Analysis
Informed by the basic elements of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), all three authors, who have previously conducted qualitative analyses, engaged in multiple readings of the transcripts across three waves. In the first phase of analysis, we created detailed family profiles for each participant to better organize the data and to follow individual narratives. We noted mothers’ current and change in status of family members, relationship patterns and satisfaction, and sources of support identified during each interview.
In the second phase of analysis, we used open coding strategies (Berg, 2007) to identify categories by type of partnership, stability of relationships, residential status, relationships with nonresident fathers, and relationships with family-of-origin members. An axial coding strategy was used in which research members identified collective themes regarding partnership transitions that emerged from the interviews. This process resulted in 30 codes in areas such as partnership satisfaction, conflict/tension in partnerships, commitment to children, and emotional, financial, and instrumental support from family-of-origin members.
In the third phase of analysis, we systematically coded transcripts using the coding scheme established in Stage 2. In addition to answering specific questions about partnerships during interviews, mothers often talked at length elsewhere in their interviews about their relationships. Consequently, coders carefully reviewed all transcripts for each wave in their entirety to capture any additional comments regarding the mothers’ family relationships. Because qualitative methodology is an ongoing “back-and-forth” process between theory and the data (Berg, 2007), changes or additions to the coding scheme were adopted as appropriate during this stage. Individual codes were not mutually exclusive; therefore, coders could apply multiple codes to individual segments of the transcripts when appropriate. This iterative process of induction and deduction was performed until all coders could agree on a set of themes. To assure interrater reliability, each author’s coding was cross-checked by a different researcher. Coded segments were stored in a qualitative software program (MAXqda2) to facilitate organization and retrieval of data.
Findings
The narratives of rural, low-income mothers not only featured uncertainty, unreliability, and instability but also underscored their resilience and ability to adapt in the midst of partnership instability. Counter to the mothers’ desire, staying in relationships did not always result in the creation of a stable family system. The mothers’ decisions to enter into, stay in, and dissolve their partnerships, in most cases, were part of their flexible responses to the structural constraints imposed by unemployment, lack of resources, and rural contexts, as well as their active attempts to reconfigure their family systems to best fit their environment. Our qualitative analysis identified three dominant themes which influenced mothers’ partnership decisions: (a) the complicated nature of the mothers’ partnerships, (b) the mothers’ strong commitment to their children, and (c) the mothers’ relationships with their families of origin as a stabilizing force.
“It’s Just Nice to Have Someone”: Broken Romance Created by Multiple Constraints
Mothers longed for a stable partnership where they could enjoy companionship, financial security, and parental support. Their comments, implicitly and explicitly, indicated that they preferred to actively parent children with a partner in households. Mallory had a blended family and tried to coordinate the visitation schedules of her biological children with that of her husband’s biological children. She explained, “We generally try to have the kids at the same time so that they kind of feel like they are in a sort of cohesive family.” However, the mothers did not exactly pursue the creation of a “traditional family” along the lines of the SNAF (Smith, 1993). Unlike previous studies that found high marital aspirations among poor mothers (Lichter, Batson, & Brown, 2004; Nelson, 2006), only a few participants explicitly expressed a desire to marry, indicating that marriage was not essential to their family lives. Rather, their hope, as illustrated by one mother’s comment that, “It’s just nice to have someone,” was simply to find a good partner.
Creating a functional family system that included a partner, however, was difficult for many mothers due to multiple challenges created by the uncertainties of their lives. Romance was easily trumped by financial stress, unemployment, unequal gendered household responsibilities, and partners’ problematic behaviors. Poverty constituted a lens of uncertainty which caused stress and conflict for couples in low-income households. Mothers expressed their preference for men to be good providers, and thus, were often discouraged by their partners’ inability to, for example, “pay the bills.” This point is illustrated by Alyne, who, at the time of her first interview (Wave 1), was excited about her engagement and reported, “I finally found someone to marry!” At Wave 2, she was happily married to her former fiancé. Between the second and third interviews, however, both she and her husband lost their jobs and their family finances deteriorated. At the third interview, the newly divorced Alyne reflected, “I think between getting fired and not having money to be able to do things I got to do, I don’t know, we just got a distance there . . . now I honestly don’t care if he comes by or not.” In contrast, being with a man who earned a stable income was seen as a “step up” by some women. Annabel was very satisfied with her new partner and commented, “I’ve got a man that actually cares, and makes more money [than me].”
When the expectation of men being the primary provider was violated, mothers questioned traditional gender roles with respect to household chores and attempted to renegotiate the assignment of domestic responsibilities with their partners. Yet redefining gender roles did not always go smoothly for couples and created ambiguity and tension within the family. Mallory shared her frustrations with her husband who had been unemployed for 10 months. She felt that she was “forced into the working world,” despite her desire to stay home with their children. Mallory expected her husband to assume domestic tasks since he was not working, commenting, “I get aggravated with him if I have to come home and cook dinner after I have worked all day long, and I am thinking, wait a minute, you were here.” Similarly, Birch was frustrated by her cohabiting partner’s financial situation. Although her partner had a full-time job, a significant amount of his paycheck was being garnished by the hospital where he had received medical treatment. Birch commented on his lack of help with household chores:
He refuses to do certain things, and he never has done ‘em and he never will. And at night, he watches the kids, but I’ll come home and the house is just a disaster because he’ll sit and play PlayStation all night and let them do whatever they want. And so they just, like, trash the house . . . and so, I used to just try and not be so stressed out, you know, working all day and then coming home and trying to get the house cleaned, give ‘em baths, do homework and then get ‘em to bed, and then do more housework, and I’d be up ‘til midnight, doing all the housework.
Birch and her boyfriend had separated by the Wave 3 interview, because of the continuous conflict over finances and household responsibilities.
Other mothers faced more serious problematic behaviors of their partners, including alcohol and substance abuse, incarceration, or domestic violence. Mothers who identified serious issues with their partners grappled with their partners’ unreliability with respect to their contribution to household finances and support for parenting, their family’s uncertain future, and a lack of control over their situations. Asked how things were going with her partner, Janice responded, “Terrible. Especially right now, because he started drinking again and every time he starts drinking, he quits his job . . . whenever he starts, it gets ugly. He knows it bothers me, but what can I do?” Janice did not feel comfortable leaving her daughter with him. Incarceration was another significant obstacle. Maire felt she was “missing out” on an important part of her life by having a partner in jail at the first two waves of interviews. Maire had an affair at Wave 2, and was pessimistic about her partnership, stating, “The way we keep going, we’ll be split up. I don’t know. I can’t really say anything until he gets out, and we’ll see what happens.” At Wave 3, however, Maire reported that their relationship improved as her partner was released from prison, commenting, “It’s nice having him home.”
Dealing with a partner’s problems over time created emotional ups and downs marked by repeated cycles of optimism and disappointment. Geneva’s husband, for example, had a drug problem at Wave 1 but appeared to have been rehabilitated by Wave 2. Despite having serious financial problems, Geneva felt their situation was improving. By Wave 3, however, her husband had been incarcerated for robbery and they were in the process of getting a divorce. Asked about their relationship future, Geneva replied, “Maybe later . . . if he can get himself back on his feet.” As illustrated by Geneva’s situation, relationship dissolution maximized the functionality of mothers’ families and minimized the risk of uncertainty in their lives.
“Her Happiness Is Way More Important Than My Crumbling Relationship”: Trade-offs Between Parenting and Partnership Stability
Both partnership dissolution and formation resulted in reconfiguration of the family system. Nearly all mothers expressed a strong desire to put their children first and attempted to maximize available resources for their children. The motherhood role was central to these mothers’ identities; accordingly, mothers’ partnership decisions were significantly influenced by their assessed impact on their children’s happiness and well-being. Whether their children got along with their partners also outweighed mothers’ own relationship satisfaction. Explaining why she was thinking of ending her relationship at the Wave 2 interview, Janice expressed that her biggest challenge was
dealing with Holly’s happiness, because she doesn’t care too much for Allen. She’ll tell him that too. It’s not a secret. I try to make it work, but I’ve been starting to think that her happiness is way more important than my crumbling relationship.
This desire to put children first persisted even in the face of multiple family transitions. In the case of Alyne, she initially shared that she looked forward to “hopefully finding someone the kids like. They liked my ex-husband but I mean someone they’d like permanently.” When expressing excitement over her engagement the following year, Alyne quickly added, “But the kids still come first.” In her final interview, she talked about getting a divorce and believed that it was a better situation for her children, saying, “I would say that the kids and I got closer together. Dad gone has made us closer together, believe it or not.”
The effect of a new partnership on increasing or diminishing their ability to parent effectively was another critical element of a viable partnership. When mothers felt their parenting roles were supported by their partners, it directly enhanced their partnership satisfaction. Maire shared the joy of having her husband back at home after being in prison for a few years. She explained, “I like it. It’s not always what I say goes. We both have to talk about it, like the speech. We talk about what we want for Jack. It’s not just me deciding everything.” Another mother, Lida, also felt that her relationship with her daughter improved after moving in with her boyfriend because “being a single mom, we got on each other’s nerves a lot. But since Chance has been here, that’s helped out a lot. . . . I’m a happy person now.” Equally important was whether men were “good with” her children. Lida was grateful for her relationship because “He is doing wonderfully with my daughter, who also just adores him, so that’s nice to have a father figure in her life.” In contrast, in cases where the mothers felt that their parenting abilities were not promoted or their partners did not fulfill their expected parental role, ambiguity and insecurity with parenting performance eroded partnerships.
Although not as common, some mothers chose to stay in unhealthy relationships in order to have help with parenting. As described by Madison,
I think in some ways he can be verbally abusive because he will put you down for not doing things perfectly. You know what I mean. He puts me down, he puts his kids down. I guess I do experience a little bit of that. Unfortunately, because I’m educated enough to know that I should probably not be in a relationship that isn’t healthy, but he meets all the needs that right now I need met. I frankly don’t feel like I can control my kid on my own. It’s not that I don’t care about him because that’s part of the component too, but the logical side would probably outweigh it if I didn’t have other things that I felt like I needed. It’s really complicated. . . . I’d rather deal with his complaining and criticizing sometimes, than deal with a child that’s out of control and not have anybody to support [me] right now.
As illustrated above, given the high value mothers place on their parenting role, having help with parenting can play a critical role in the decision to enter into, stay, or leave a partnership.
Several mothers also commented on how partnerships could create financial stability for their children. The issue of finances was tied closely to their expectation that their partners be “providers.” If this expectation was not fulfilled, dissolution or reorganization of the family system followed. After separating from her husband, Mallory explained why she was reluctant to pursue a divorce. She explained her intent “to work things out for the kids,” because he was “a good provider.” In contrast, Sueanne made the decision to divorce, seek sole custody of her children, and sever her children’s relationship with their father because of his inability to provide for them financially, despite the fact that “he’s good about keepin’ them if I have to go somewhere or something.” She explained,
This time nothing is going to stop me ‘cuz you don’t do enough for my kids. They’re better off without me even being married to you anyway. I will get more help with stuff than what I did with him instead of doin’ without. At least if I do get a job, I’ll feel better that I’m doin’ stuff for my kids. I don’t care if he’s doin’ anything for them. I don’t have to let him see them if he doesn’t pay child support.
Sueanne’s decision to end her partnership was based on her husband’s failure to provide for the family along with her evaluation of her employability and of the informal and formal support that would become available to her children after divorce.
In some cases, partnership transitions required blending of families, which resulted in reassignment of roles, establishment of new routines, and modification of parental responsibilities (Amato, 2005). Mothers attempted to define ambiguous family boundaries. Often, the successful blending of families helped mothers achieve a sense of stability and enhanced positive feelings toward their partnerships. Yet some mothers expressed difficulties with the transition, discussing conflicts between their children, their partners, their partners’ children, and themselves. Mothers frequently expressed frustration related to their attempts to parent their partners’ children. When asked about parenting difficulties, Marguerite answered, “Having four and raising two that constantly ask about their mother.” This conflict persisted into the following year when she continued to characterize the situation as “I’ve got two girls who don’t want to live here and my husband won’t let them live with their mom.” Similarly, Geneva reported that her partner was not involved with parenting her daughter because of her daughter’s reluctance to accept him as a parent. She added that “When it comes to disciplining, he doesn’t. Because she doesn’t take him serious.” Rejection of the parenting role by children created tension in the partner relationship, and increased uncertainty and insecurity within the family. Mallory commented, “Jeramiah’s daughter won’t accept me as part of his life and if that is so, I won’t make him choose between her and I. I will just leave.”
“She’s Been There for Me Through Everything”: The Role of Family of Origin in the Quest for Stability
Given the sporadic nature and unreliability of their relationships with partners, mothers often relied on other informal networks—family, friends, neighbors, and particularly their own parents—for their daily survival. Mothers viewed their families of origin as the most reliable source of support for themselves and their children, underscoring the fact that even for partnered mothers, stable family structure does not necessarily include romantic partners. Asked about the most important person in their lives, partnered mothers typically replied, “my mother.” For example, Allana had a sporadic relationship with her son’s father across all interviews. Although she claimed that her relationship with him was going well, Allana relied on her mother for “everything” including “physical, emotional, financial . . . all of them.”
Instrumental support for the mothers, children, and, in some cases, their temporary partners from the mothers’ family of origin in the form of child care, transportation, meals, and housing was critical for the well-being of these mothers’ families. Gendered support from the family of origin was apparent, as participants’ mothers and grandmothers were predominantly featured in the mothers’ narratives. This support offered flexibility to mothers, allowing them access to help as needs arose, no matter the type of need or time of day. Describing a recent impasse related to her daughter’s reticence to talk with her, Geneva highlighted one example of how her mother provided parenting backup:
I finally had to just call Mama and tell her to get up here and please, you know, find out what was going on. So she [mother] came, and she sat down with her [daughter], and she talked to her. She sat and she talked, and she sat and she talked, and she [daughter] finally gave her a little note, a little love note from her boyfriend that she didn’t want me to see. So, she helps me out.
Family-of-origin support was linked to a desire to help mothers achieve short- and long-term self-sufficiency and well-being. Parents, in particular, provided support to help their daughters further their education or to receive vocational training. Living in her parents’ home, Tana described the assistance provided by her family and friends as follows:
I was more determined [to get a better GPA] . . . I have my family to thank a lot for that, too. They helped baby-sit, and, like, the daycare I was at, I wouldn’t get back in time to pick them up, so my friends or my family would pick them up for me, you know, take care of them for a little while, just ‘til I got back, but then they’d go to bed right away, and I could study.
When mothers strayed from paths to self-sufficiency by forming a romantic relationship, however, they often experienced disapproval and censure from their families, suggesting that partnership formation may not always be beneficial to the mothers’ development. In fact, mothers’ parents sometimes identified daughters’ romantic relationships as major obstacles to their daughters’ success. Leandra’s experience demonstrated the dynamic and complex nature of her relationship with her parents in the context of her partnership. Leandra was a mother of two daughters who did not have a partner at Wave 1. She had frequent contact with her family of origin, from whom she received a variety of support, including emergency child care and housing. At Wave 2, Leandra decided to reunite and cohabit with the father of her youngest daughter, who had been abusive to her in the past. Leandra’s parents’ disapproval of her relationship resulted in decreased support from her family of origin. Leandra shared that “My parents still hardly talk to me” because of her partner choice. She further explained,
They don’t like Richard and as long as I’m with him, I mean, even when I go up there to try and be nice, my mother sits there and throws these smart comments at him trying to get him aggravated. Like saying, ‘Buddy boy, you don’t know how to plan for retirement!’ I mean, just, outright stuff like that, treating him like a little child and, that just aggravates him and it aggravates me, too.
In the final wave, however, Leandra reported that she had separated from her partner and the relationship with her parents had improved. She happily reported that her father was helping with home improvement tasks.
Accepting help from the family of origin, however, appeared to accentuate developmental tensions related to the mothers’ desire for autonomy and to be less reliant on their parents. Annabel described her relationship with her mother as “off and on, I guess. She’s mad because I moved [out of house]. They didn’t want me to move out.” When referring to her feelings about the move, Annabel explained,
I like it. . . . Because I don’t feel like I’m tied down. I feel like I’m on my own, out of my parents’ house. I feel like I’m doing something, like I’m important, other than you know, staying there with them.
Similarly, Kyrene highlighted the tension of feeling safe, yet once again dependent, on her parents:
In the same sense that I’m back home with my mom and dad. The protection. That feeling of being protected and comfortable. Knowing that neither one of us [she and child] will want for anything. That’s kind of a good feeling and a bad feeling. Cause I wasn’t able to do anything at Christmas time. My mama and daddy did everything for Christmas. I didn’t buy the first present.
Most mothers expressed gratitude for having stable support from parents and other family members, yet this support did not come without costs. In some cases, mothers shared that their parents were increasingly impatient with their situation and frustrated with unreliable partners.
Tensions between mothers and parents also influenced the mothers’ ability to develop partner relationships. Consistently across interviews, mothers needed and received a variety of support to meet their family needs. Partners who were unable or unwilling to support mothers and children, whether due to incarceration, substance abuse, or unemployment, were considered less desirable sources of support than parents and other family members. In their attempts to negotiate financial challenges and provide for their children, the boundary between mothers and their families of origin appeared to be elastic. The elasticity of these boundaries plays a central role in the strategies used by these mothers to adapt and reduce risk within the context of uncertainty presented by rural poverty.
Discussion
Mothers’ decisions on whether to create, sustain, or dissolve partnerships were less tied to contemporary American notions of romance or “pursuit of love” (Coontz, 2004) but, rather, were based on various factors related to meeting individual and family needs (Burton, 1990; Burton et al., 1996; Burton & Tucker, 2009). Specifically, partnership choices depended on three factors: partners’ ability to fulfill provider and parental roles, impacts of partnership on children’s well-being, and availability of formal and informal support. The mothers prioritized the well-being of their children and positioned their parenting roles over partnership stability. Thus, although they sought reliable male partners, they were not fixed on the pursuit of partner-focused family structures such as those represented by the SNAF (Nelson, 2005, 2006; Smith 1993). Partners were included in the family system if they were perceived to contribute to the well-being of the family, but excluded if they failed to fulfill expected roles, often resulting in dissolution of the intimate relationship. This decision was mediated by the availability (or lack) of alternative financial and parenting support, most often provided by the mothers’ family of origin.
The predominant concern among mothers for creating stability and increasing support for children (Roy & Burton, 2007) is apparent from the mothers’ ongoing evaluation of their partners’ ability to perform as providers and parents as well as their reticence to turn over control of decisions and actions related to their children to their partners. Some mothers reported enhanced parenting as a result of their partnerships, with their partners getting along with their children, offering parenting support, contributing to child rearing, and/or providing financial stability to their children. In such cases, partners were integrated into the family system. However, other mothers expressed dissatisfaction toward their partners’ performance as a coparent or breadwinner, in which case, partners were excluded from the family system.
In the absence of partners, or if partners failed to fulfill their roles as providers and/or parents, mothers most often turned to their families of origin for material, instrumental, and emotional support. Strong connections with their families of origin provided the mothers with a consistent and deep network of support, which could be said to constitute an intergenerational family system. However, such familial support was accompanied by parental criticism and attempts to influence partnership choice and, thus, may not always have been the mothers’ ideal choice. Several mothers reported feeling of encouragement and/or pressure from their families to become self-sufficient by attending school, gaining employment, and avoiding poor partner choices. Given the mothers’ strong emphasis on providing a secure environment for their children, the mothers, sometimes reluctantly, accepted their parents’ censure, restrictions, and imposition on their autonomy in exchange for this stability. Nelson (2006) observed similarly complicated family relationships between impoverished mothers and their families of origins. It is worth noting that the provision of support to the mothers also likely comes at the cost of the personal and financial well-being of the family of origin. As such, the willingness of the family of origin to continue supporting the mothers may be viewed as a strategy to ensure long-term family stability across generations in the face of economic uncertainties (Sano & Manoogian, 2010).
For many of the mothers, the resulting family structure could be described as one with the mother and her children at its core and flexible boundaries that can be redefined to include or exclude romantic partners and families of origin, depending on who is perceived to be able to provide the most reliable support. The families of origin are more consistently included in these family systems whereas the presence of partners is more fluid. Such “boundary elasticity” (Boss, 1980) serves as a basis for these mothers’ resilience and ability to adapt to the various stresses in the context of uncertainty and allows mothers to choose the best available support system at a given time.
The disparity between the mothers’ pursuit of stable partnerships and the reality of their reliance of families of origin can be understood in terms of a symbolic system (Boss & Greenberg, 1984). As pointed out earlier, long-term stable partnerships are more difficult to achieve among low-income populations due to the presence of multiple stresses (Edin et al., 2004). Given this cultural context, stable partnerships may function simply as a symbolic goal, that is, something the mothers are working toward, rather than a realistic option for meeting personal and family needs. Edin and Kefalas (2005) observed that marriage took on a powerful symbolic meaning among urban unmarried couples living in poverty, with the potential to elevate one’s social status in a community where marriage was rare. Similarly, the rural, low-income mothers in this study may have assigned symbolic meaning to stable partnership, whereas relying on pragmatic, functional family systems that may or may not include families of origin and/or romantic partners for their daily survival.
Finally, it is important to note that these families’ economic (poverty) and geographic (rural) situations coincide to create a context of uncertainty (Burton & Tucker, 2009) characterized by a lack of financial resources (buffer), limited employment opportunities (unemployment, underemployment, or low-paying employment), limited social services (including child care and transportation), limited opportunities for achieving self-sufficiency (i.e., education and/or vocational training), and inequitable gender expectations (lower wages for female workers), and so on. Discouraged by the low potential to achieve self-sufficiency because of the lack of employment and educational opportunities (Mattingly & Bean, 2010; O’Hare, 2007), mothers ultimately prioritize parenting over employment (Pruitt, 2008), resulting in a need to financially rely on others. The smaller partnership market presented by the rural context limits the mothers’ ability to find reliable, financially secure partners with whom they can form stable partnerships (Sano & Manoogian, 2010). This, combined with the scarcity of formal support, that is, social services, perhaps leads mothers to rely more heavily on informal support from their families of origin and remain in or return to less-than-desirable partnerships (Rural Policy Research Institute, 1999).
Although our in-depth qualitative examination of low-income mothers’ partnership experiences contributes to emerging partnership research, we recognize that its depth and scope and inference are limited by a number of shortcomings. First, given that this investigation was part of a larger national study with a broader set of aims, the interview protocol only included a few specific questions regarding partnerships. Although the mothers volunteered rich information about their previous and current relationships and the impact of their partnerships on their children, it is certain that a more comprehensive picture would have emerged if the mothers had been asked a greater number of systematic questions regarding partnership. Second, although our data collection took place at three different time points, the entire series only covered a relatively short time span (1999-2003). To gain a broader understanding of the nature of partnerships for this population, partnership trajectories need to be examined over the longer term. Finally, we considered any partnership change over the three waves to represent “partnership instability” and, thus, our sample comprised a variety of instability patterns, the nature of which may have differed. However, comparison of different instability patterns and more detailed analysis of the effect of various factors such as the number of partnership changes were beyond the scope of our study. A more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the diversity of partnership instability experiences would be invaluable for policy makers and human service practitioners.
Given the context of current welfare policies that promote marriage as a strategy to reduce poverty (Lichter & Qian, 2008), this investigation underscores the importance of understanding and recognizing that mothers’ priorities may not necessarily coincide with the goals of policy. Specifically, our findings indicate that although mothers may seek marriage as a symbolic goal, they, in fact, prioritize their children’s well-being, are pragmatic about their partnership choices, and look to their families of origin as their most consistent source of support. Such understanding of the mothers’ priorities and adaptive strategies should be integrated into policies targeting low-income families. Partnerships may not, in and of themselves, help mothers with their daily survival; particularly if the partnerships are not viewed by the mothers as contributing to their primary concerns, which are financial stability and their children’s well-being. Unlike never-married mothers, many of these low-income mothers have previously experienced marriage and, thus, are less fixed on the idea of marriage and more focused on the practical aspects of partnership, that is, the potential for financial, emotional, and parenting support. Policies targeted at this population, thus, should focus less on the mothers’ symbolic goals and place greater emphasis on the mothers’ real priorities (children) and existent support systems (family of origin).
Footnotes
Data were collected in conjunction with the cooperative multistate research project NC-223/NC-1011 titled “Rural Low-income families: Tracking Their Well-being and Functioning in the Context of Welfare Reform.” Cooperating states are California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This research was supported in part by USDA/CSREES/NRICGP Grants 2001-35401-10215, 2002-35401-11591, and 2004-35401-14938.