Different Family Arrangements from the Perspective of Pre-teens

Abstract

Economic and social transformations, in the second half of the 20th century, led to changes in concepts of family. This study aimed to investigate the conceptual perspective of 40 children regarding the new configurations of the contemporary family. The children were between 11 and 14 years old, belonged to nuclear and single-parent arrangements, and wrote their answers. The results indicate that the nuclear family continues to be seen as the ‘most perfect’ family. Remarried and single-parent families were classified as ‘not good’, while extended families were perceived with more positive qualifications than negative ones. The results suggest the need to investigate how new family configurations are perceived by children of different age groups and family arrangements.

Keywords:
family; family arrangements; family configurations; adolescence

Resumo

Transformações econômicas e sociais, na segunda metade do século XX, acarretaram mudanças nas concepções de família. Este estudo teve como objetivo investigar a perspectiva conceitual de 40 crianças a respeito das novas configurações da família contemporânea. As crianças tinham entre 11 e 14 anos de idade, pertenciam aos arranjos nuclear e monoparental e registravam as suas próprias respostas. Os resultados indicam que a família nuclear continua sendo vista como a “mais perfeita”. As famílias recasadas e as monoparentais foram classificadas como “ruins”, enquanto as famílias extensas foram percebidas com qualificações mais positivas do que negativas. Os resultados sugerem a necessidade de investigar como as novas configurações familiares são percebidas por crianças de diferentes faixas etárias e arranjos familiares.

Palavras-chave:
família; arranjos familiares; configurações familiares; adolescência

Sociocultural and economic changes experienced in the 1960s and 1970s produced significant transformations that were reflected in the way of thinking and ways of life in society (Louro, 2000). As a result, there was a gradual change in the concept of family that was associated with the nuclear, patriarchal, and bourgeois model formed by the union of a man and a woman with children, with well-defined roles (Louro, 2000; Oliveira, 2009). Currently, both constitutive and relational changes in the structure and functioning of the family are evidenced by the diversity of emerging arrangements and by the greater flexibility of relationships, believing in more democratic and egalitarian ideals in the division of roles and the mediation of functions between individuals (Arriagada, 2009; Santos et al., 2019).

The new family arrangements that emerged in Brazil were legitimized through the principle of family plurality, from the Federal Constitution of 1988, article 226, paragraph 4 (Brazil, 2016). According to this Constitution, families formed through stable union criteria and those categorized as single-parent families - given their constitution by any of the parents and their children - were recognized as “family” through the law. This principle provides a new perspective for the organization of society, allowing for new social relationships (Yassue, 2010).

Contemporary studies on the family construct have admitted not only nuclear and single-parent structures, but many other possibilities for conceiving a family (Dessen, 2010). One can recognize, for example, arrangements formed by remarried families, divorced spouses who rebuild their homes with other people, extended families formed by people cohabiting in the same house, single people who decide to live alone, unmarried people who cohabit, people who decide to live together before the marriage becomes official, spouses who live in separate houses, same-sex unions, among others. However, according to Rizzoto et al. (2018), the last census carried out by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), carried out in 2010, shows that the traditional family consisting of a couple with children is responsible for 49.4% of family arrangements; the second largest type of family arrangement is female single-parent families (12.2%), characterized by a lower socioeconomic level compared to the nuclear arrangement.

The process of diversification of family configurations and new patterns of relationships bet on valuing the affective aspects of these bonds and the functions of care and protection, gradually contributing to a change in social behavior. However, the idea of the traditional family as a ‘sacred’ institution and representative of a standard to be followed continues to permeate the social imaginary and is maintained by intergenerational exchanges, as demonstrated by Landim and Borsa (2019). These authors investigated how 108 children from Rio de Janeiro (52.8% boys and 47.2% girls), aged between five and 12 years, graphically represent and describe their families. The content of the drawings of most of them points to the traditional family as the representative model of this institution. However, the verbalized concepts were more associated with affective aspects between family members than with other aspects such as coexistence and housing.

Along the same line, the study by Antunes (2016) shows that children aged between 8 and 10 years, of both sexes, belonging to both nuclear and single-parent families, consider the traditional family as the ideal family model, attributing a greater number of positive attributes to it. Nevertheless, for children belonging to single-parent arrangements, single-parent families are also capable of dealing with adversities and promoting the well-being of their members.

The complexity of the dynamics of the single-parent family stems from the fact that it has only one parent, who is responsible for their descendants in terms of their basic rights such as housing, education, and food. This type of family entity is established by the will of those involved, by sociocultural and emotional demands, or due to the death of one of the parents (IBGE, 2016; Saboia et al., 2012). Although divorce is indicated as one of the most common ways to constitute this family arrangement, single parenthood is also considered a previously programmed choice (Arrais et al., 2019). Regardless of the situations that promote the formation of this type of arrangement, it is marked by strong losses of bonds between its members and a tendency to reduce income and overload the functions and roles of the parent (Santos & Santos, 2009). In this context, the participation and intervention of other family members for its functioning are very common, with emphasis on the constant presence of the extended family. This extended family is represented, mainly, by the maternal grandmother, followed by the aunts and cousins acting as a social network of support for the mothers who head their homes and take care of their children alone (Paixão, 2013; Santos & Santos, 2009).

The term “extended family” was recognized from the reform of the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA, 2009), which was configured with Law 12010, of August 3, 2009, to inhibit the violation of the rights of children and adolescents to family care, especially when they were in risky situations. According to the sole paragraph of Article 25,

An extended family is understood to be that which extends beyond the parent-child unit or the coupling unit, formed by close relatives with whom the child or adolescent lives, and maintains bonds of affinity and affection. (ECA, 2009, p. 27)

The extended family stands out in the contemporary scenario due to the impact that social transformations have generated in the family. In many cases, the presence of other family members, such as grandparents, uncles, cousins, and people with emotional ties to the child’s life, became necessary, whether assiduously or through visits, to provide support to the family nucleus. In this sense, the presence of other women, especially maternal grandmothers, is markedly significant, especially in less well-off families (Solari, 2017). They contribute to caring for the children, maintaining household chores and even providing financial resources to increase the family income.

In a qualitative study that aimed to describe the perceptions and feelings of six adolescents, aged between 15 and 18 years, about their relationships with their grandmothers in a co-residence arrangement (cohabitation between biological parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), Paixão (2013) concluded that adolescents had positive perceptions and feelings regarding the care provided by their grandmothers. They also emphasized the formation of bonds of affection and solidarity between the different members of their family. The author also points out that the co-residence arrangement was the alternative found by these families to adapt to situations of unexpected changes during family life, such as early pregnancy and divorce. It is important to highlight that grandchildren and grandparents who live together establish a relationship of mutual affection, care, and protection, allowing grandparents to transmit customs, values, and wisdom between generations (Araújo, 2019).

In a literature review study with 13 scientific articles published between 2012 and 2017, regarding the attitudes of children and adolescents about old age, focusing on intergenerational activities and the role of grandmothers, Anjos et al. (2019) highlighted the instrumental and emotional support of grandmothers, as well as the benefits of intergenerational interventions. While the positive aspects are emphasized among arrangements made up of extended family members cohabiting with each other, the relational complexities that are established by living together are highlighted among families remade from a new marriage after divorce (Alves & Arpini, 2017; Bernardi et al., 2016; Oliveira & Mello, 2016; Vieira et al., 2019).

Costa and Dias (2012) emphasize that contemporary society has been adhering to other forms of love relationships, with the formation of new family groups from a new marital union, which uses the prefix “re”, derived from Latin and which suggests a repetition, something done again. For this reason, these new nuclei are recognized as restored, remarried, reconstructed families, and so on. Vieira et al. (2019) state that legal facilities for divorce, the search for more satisfactory relationships, and the social acceptance of the diversity of family configurations have contributed to the increase in the number of reconstituted families.

McGoldrick and Carter (1995) define the remarried family as “a home where the couple lives and at least one of the partners has a child from the previous marriage.” (p. 8). However, there is not a typical way of thinking about the remarried family, considering that several factors interfere with the characterization of this arrangement. Costa and Dias (2012) invite us to think about the range of conflicting relationships that can arise within this family dynamic. However, the authors consider that the difficulties found in the functioning of this family are not in its composition, but in the relationships established between its members. These difficulties and conflicts must be understood as transitory events that need greater flexibility from the members of the new family to favor personal, relational, and contextual adjustments (Alves & Arpini, 2017).

In a qualitative study carried out by Vieira et al. (2019), with five adolescents aged between 13 and 19 years, about their parent’s divorce and remarriage, the authors observed that the suffering caused by antecedent events of the divorce and the possibility of lack of adaptation to changes in family roles are real for these adolescents. It happened despite remarriage bringing the opportunity for a new family experience, facilitating the demonstration of more affective and more confident relationships than primary family relationships.

The first step to understanding the new relationships established within families in a given society is to know the participants’ conceptions of family. As previously highlighted, a significant number of the current investigations are directed toward the conceptions of adults, with a gap regarding what children and adolescents think about the family. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the conceptual perspective of children in transition to adolescence, members of nuclear and single-parent families, regarding the new configurations of the contemporary family.

Priority was given to similarities and differences between four contemporary family models: nuclear, single-parent, remarried, and extended families.

Method

Participants of this study were 40 children, 21 boys (52.5%) and 19 girls (47.5%), all in transition to adolescence and residing in a municipality located in the interior of the state of Bahia. The transition from childhood to adolescence is understood as a period of human development, with significant changes involving migration from childhood living conditions to an experience of greater stability and role definitions (Abramovay & Castro, 2015). These changes are associated with biological transformations characterized by rapid physical growth and hormonal peak, in addition to cognitive and sexual maturation that, in general, occurs between 11 and 14 years of age. The Project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Catholic University of Salvador, under number 2544151.

Participants

Children were recruited from two schools, one belonging to the state public network and the other to the private network. They were between 11 and 14 years old and were subdivided into two groups, depending on age: those at the beginning of the transition (GI: n=19; 47.5%) and those in the final phase of transition (GF: n= 21, 52.5%). They were also grouped, for data analysis, into nuclear families (GN: n=26; 67.5%) and single-parent families (GM: n=14, 32.5%). Nuclear arrangements are composed of both parents and their children, and single-parent arrangements are composed of divorced or separated parents, who take care of the child without the presence of the other spouse.

Procedures for Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection consisted of presenting to the children, collectively, posters made with cardboard, containing representative figures of the four types of families investigated, namely: nuclear, single-parent, extended, and remarried. For making these figures, molds of people representing both sexes and different ages were produced. Then, the figures were assembled and collaged, characterizing the family typology investigated for the presentation. Concomitantly with the presentation of the posters, the researcher presented a brief definition of each arrangement to guarantee conceptual standardization among the participants. Then, an answer sheet was distributed to each child, where they should record what they thought about each of the typologies, in the corresponding space.

The categories and subcategories obtained based on the children’s responses were grouped and classified using attributes, namely: positive, neutral, and negative, forming a single system of categories for the four investigated arrangements. The category system was elaborated based on the criteria and stages suggested by Dessen and Cerqueira-Silva (2009). Table 1 presents the Category System on ‘Perceptions About Different Family Arrangements’.

Table 1
Category System Referring to Different Family Arrangements and Their Respective Attributes

ATTRIBUTE S	CATEGORIES	SUBCATEGORIES
Positive	“Perfect” family	Best family / Best environment / Good / Very good / Nice / Very nice.
	“Happy” family	Happier than the others/ Happy like the others/ Happy/ Fun/ Interesting/ Special.
	“Completeness” family	The most complete / It never ends.
	“Harmonious” family	United
	Social Support Network	Family that depends on each other / Family that helps those in need.
Neutral	“Traditional” family	Standard / Traditional / It’s the correct way / It’s right / God’s standard.
	“Ordinary” family	Normal / Same as others.
	Description by Composition and Size	Identification of family members/ Large/ Many people/ Various relatives/ Small.
Negative	“Outdated and Strange” family	Outdated / Strange.
	“Non-Perfect” family	Not very good / Not nice / Bad / Terrible / Unfair / Wrong / It didn't work.
	“Unhappy” family	Unhappy / Sad.
	“Incomplete” family	Incomplete / Missing father / Family that lost someone.
	“Non-Harmonious” family	Difficult / Complicated / Causes conflicts / About children / Isolated children / About everyone.

Results

The results are presented taking into account the conceptions of each group of children based on the type of family they belong to (nuclear and single-parent: GN and GM) and their phases (initial and final: GI and GF) in the course of their transition to adolescence. The children’s perceptions about each of the investigated family arrangements are presented below.

Perceptions About the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family is identified with a higher percentage of positive and neutral attributes than negative ones, particularly by the GN and GM groups. The GN and GM groups, as well as GI, did not mention negative attributes for the nuclear arrangement, the GF group mentioned this attribute only once, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Percentages of Attributes About Nuclear Family, per Group (GN/GM and GI/GF)

Among the positive attributes mentioned by the GN, the following categories deserve to be highlighted: “perfect family” (n = 08), “good/very good, nice/very nice family (n = 03), and “family that provides a better environment to live in” (n = 05); the GM emphasized the category “perfect family” (n = 05). Regarding the neutral attributes (GN: 46.2% and GM: 28.6%), the children from the GN highlighted their family typology as the “traditional family” (n = 08), qualifying it as standard (n = 04), traditional (n = 03) and as the correct family constitution (n = 01). Similarly, the “traditional family” category (n = 02) was pointed out by the GM, but with emphasis on the people who are part of it (father, mother, and siblings) (n = 02). It is interesting to observe that children from the GF mentioned more neutral attributes (52.4%) than positive attributes (42.8%) and, although both groups (GI and GF) attribute positive qualifications to the nuclear family, the difference between the percentage points of this attribute was 30.9% (GI: 73.7% and GF: 42.8%).

Perceptions About the Single-Parent Family

Contrary to that observed for the nuclear arrangement, the single-parent structure received more negative than positive attributes. This occurred both for children in GN and GM, as well as for children in GI and GF. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage attributed by the participants to each attribute referring to the single-parent arrangement.

Figure 2.
Percentages of Attributes About Single-Parent Family, per Group (GN/GM and GI/GF)

From the total frequency of categories mentioned within the negative attributes (n = 30), the “Non-perfect family” category (n = 12; 40%) achieved the highest percentage, followed by the “Incomplete family” category (n = 11; 36.66%). Both GN and GM children identified the single-parent family as: “Non-perfect family” (GN: n = 09 and GM: n = 03) and “Incomplete family” (GN: n = 07 and GM: n = 04). In the comparison between the GI and GF groups, this pattern was maintained, with the prevalence of negative attributes (GI: 47.4% and GF: 91.3%). However, the difference in percent points (43.9%) for negative classifications was greater between these groups than between GN and GM.

Despite attributing negative qualifications to this type of arrangement (47.4%), with a higher percentage, the GI group also highlighted the positive (21%) and neutral (31.6%) attributes; on the other hand, the GF group did not mention positive attributes to this family typology.

Perceptions About the Remarried Family

The perception of the remarried family was similar to that of the single-parent family in terms of the highest percentage of negative attributes on the part of the participants. Of the total attributes mentioned for this type of family (n = 37), negative qualifications correspond to 75.35%; neutral attributes, to 21.53%; and positive ones, to 3.12%. Figure 3 shows the comparison of attribute percentages per group.

Figure 3.
Percentages of Attributes About Remarried Family, per Group (GN/GM and GI/GF)

Interestingly, the percentage of negative qualifications for the remarried family typology was greater than 70% for both GN and GM groups; and children in the final transition were the ones who attributed more negative attributes. Among the mentioned categories, the remarried family is classified as a “Non-perfect family” (GN: n = 12 and GM: n = 03), “Non-harmonious family” (GN: n = 06 and GM: n = 05), and “Strange family” (GM: n = 02). Two children from the nuclear arrangement mentioned that it is a “wrong family, generated by failure”. As for positive qualifications, they were infrequent and issued only by children from GM and GI.

The comparison between the perceptions of children at the initial and final stages of the transition to adolescence (GI and GF) revealed that the remarried family is also considered a “Non-perfect family” (GI: n = 07 and GF: n = 08) and “Non-harmonious” (GI: 03 and GF: 07). Only one child from the single-parent group, at the beginning of the transition, considered it a “Nice family” and one child from the same arrangement, but at the final phase of the transition, considered it as a “Family like the others”.

Perceptions About the Extended Family

The extended family, like the nuclear family, is seen with more positive attributes than neutral and negative ones. Based on the total of all attributes highlighted for the extended family (n = 41), the positive ones obtained a percentage of 63.41%; neutral attributes, 29.26%; and the negatives, 7.31%. Figure 4 summarizes the percentages of each attribute, per group of participants.

Figure 4.
Percentages of Attributes About Extended Family, per Group (GN/GM and GI/GF)

Most children in the nuclear and single-parent groups identified the extended family as a “Perfect family” (GN: n = 08 and GM: n = 07), attributing qualifications such as: “Good”, “Very good”, “Nice”, “Very nice”; and “Happy family”, considering it not only happy but also “Funny” and “Interesting” (GN: n = 04 and GM: n = 02). Two groups (GN: n = 9 and GM: n = 3) highlighted the family composition, identifying its members (father, mother, uncle, cousin, etc.) or its size (large, with many people, several relatives). As for the negative attributes, the extended family was perceived as a “Non-perfect family”, emphasizing attributes such as: “Not very good”, “Bad” or “Terrible” (GN: n =3). Concerning children who are at the initial and final stages of the transition, the perception that the extended family functions as a “Social Support Network” (GI: n = 03 and GF: n = 01) deserves special mention, whose members depend on each other and help each other.

In short, both the GN and GM groups consider the nuclear arrangement to be very good and the most capable of offering a better environment to live in. For them, this is the most traditional family arrangement, constituting the standard to be followed and the most correct way to form a family. In turn, children from GI attribute more positive aspects to the nuclear arrangement and those from GF emphasize neutral attributes through the ‘traditional family’ category. This means that, for these children, even if they are not the most perfect, the nuclear family is the most traditional, the standard family. However, when it comes to the positive attributes, both agree that it is the perfect family.

The single-parent arrangement, in turn, received a higher percentage of negative classifications, both from the GN and the GM. For them, this family is classified as “Not very good, bad or terrible” and “Incomplete”, either because the father is missing, or because it is a family marked by losses. Similarly, the comparison between the groups of children in the initial and final stages of the transition revealed that, for them, the single-parent family is characterized as “Bad or terrible”, “Unfair” and “Incomplete”. Negative attributes are highlighted in higher proportions by children in the final transition (GF).

The remarried family is seen by the children of the GN and GM as a “Family that is bad, terrible or not very good” and a “Family that is not harmonious”, mainly for the children who may feel isolated. The comparison of attributes from children who are at the initial and final stages of the transition also points to a typology characterized by imperfection and by generating a lack of harmony and embarrassment to the children. For them, “this family is not the best family constitution”.

The extended family is valued by all groups, regardless of the origin of the family (whether nuclear or single-parent) and the phase of transition to adolescence (whether initial or final). This type of family was considered perfect, happy, fun, and committed to helping each other when necessary; it was also recognized as a large family, consisting of many people.

Discussion

Data analysis reveals that the children participating in this study, belonging to both family arrangements and transition phases, recognize the varieties of existing arrangements in our society today. Nevertheless, they demonstrate greater acceptance by those families that preserve the nucleus formed by the father, mother, and children conceived in marriage with no history of separation, even if this nucleus includes other extended family members. Thus, typologies that do not meet this standard are understood as bad, imperfect, and incomplete. Such data are in line with the literature (Antunes, 2016; Landim & Borsa, 2019; Laus & Borges, 2013).

In capitalist societies, family idealization was forged according to the bourgeois nuclear marital model, which nurtured specific styles with the care and education of children (Passos, 2007). According to the author, this model was reinforced by religious ideology and by a whole legal apparatus that legitimized and perpetuated a family ideal ensured by investments in the generational continuity of the bourgeois family and its values. For this reason, the idea that the nuclear family is the ideal, the traditional, the correct, or the one that follows God’s pattern, is still quite ingrained today.

Likewise, regardless of the arrangements and transition phases to which they belong, the children participating in this study showed similarities in their perceptions of the extended family. The extended family, like the nuclear family, is seen through positive qualifications, receiving an idealized sense of the perfect family. In addition to this attribute, the extended family was identified with the status of a happy, fun, large family, made up of many members. This recognition confirms the importance of its performance as a social network to support the family nucleus, as highlighted in the literature (Anjos et al., 2019; Araújo, 2019; Paixão, 2013; Solari, 2017).

The study carried out by Ribeiro and Cruz (2013), about the social representations of family, according to children from the city of Recife, shows that they also built positive and idealized representations of the family supported by the traditional nuclear model. However, the children revealed an expanded perspective of the family configuration, anchored in an extended family model, suggesting that this perspective is announced as a social practice experienced by the participating children.

In another study carried out by Moreira et al. (2009), who investigated the meanings of family by children in the state of Bahia, the authors identified that, although shared housing with the extended family represents the reality only of those children whose parents had a low socio-educational level, most participants, regardless of class or site, described the family as extended. The authors concluded that coexistence and familiarization with other relatives were not restricted to those who live in the house but through effective participation in supporting the family nucleus.

Thus, the support that extended family members have offered to the family nucleus, regardless of residing in the same house, has been a social reality, nowadays, and has modified the perceptions that children build about the family restricted to parental figures. The literature has pointed out that: the lower the parents’ socioeconomic level, the greater the need for a social support network through other family figures (Abuchaim et al., 2016; Araújo & Aiello, 2013).

The presence of the extended family as material and emotional support is very common in single-parent configurations. The reality of single-parent families reflects this demand for collectivity, help, and mutual support among extended family members, especially maternal grandmothers since the expressive number of this family constitution has a female predominance (IBGE, 2016; Santos & Santos, 2009; Solari, 2017).

However, contrary to the positive attributes directed towards configurations described as extensive, most participants in this study, regardless of the type of arrangement and the transition phases to which they belong, attributed a higher percentage of negative qualifications to the single-parent structure. The negative view of this arrangement may be due to the absence of one of the parents since the children mentioned that people in these families had their “lives marked by losses”. The father-child and mother-child relationships are qualitatively different and complementary and both are relevant in terms of influencing the development and behavior of children (Arrais & Vieira-Santos, 2021). For children, particularly those in the final phase of the transition to adolescence, this arrangement is also incomplete, unfair, bad, or terrible.

In the same way, the negative attributes were also directed toward those families recomposed by a new marriage. The participating children in this study, whether from nuclear arrangements or single parents, in both transition phases, conceive the remarried family as bad and conflicting. They emphasize that their formation is generated by the history of failures of other previous families marked by separations, losses, and suffering. They also highlight the imperfection of the remarried family as it creates constraints for children with other parents (Alves & Arpini, 2017; Costa & Dias, 2012).

Although the recomposed family is also a family formed by a nucleus, the way it was conceived, deconstructing the religious conception of marriage as something sacred (Dias, 2017), makes this typology distance from the idea of being a gift from God, as this is the case of the nuclear family. Interestingly, these children retain the marks left by the religious ideal that the ideal and perfect family is represented by that nucleus formed through a marriage that should only occur once. Therefore, families that break with this concept, marked by separations and/or remarriages, still receive negative qualifications and are visibly rejected as an ideal typology (Alves & Arpini, 2017; Bernardi et al., 2016; Vieira et al., 2019).

Given the different types of contemporary families, it is necessary to better investigate the possible reasons for the view that an intact nuclear formation or with the presence of extended family members is considered more positive and favorable for the coexistence and development of individuals, by children transitioning into adolescence. It is also important to check whether such conceptions remain throughout adolescence and adult life, which would allow a better understanding of how this generation will transmit the values and beliefs regarding each typology to their future children.

Likewise, investigations on single-parent families and remarried families must be deepened, although recognized as new family possibilities, bear the marks of loss, pain, and suffering. Such information could be useful for planning education and intervention programs with these families, especially remarried families whose typology was seen, both by children from nuclear and single-parent arrangements, as not being able to promote favorable situations for the well-being of their members.

Therefore, it is essential to invest in new research that makes efforts to understand the dynamics and functioning of these new family typologies and their implications for the development of individuals and the perceptions of members about these new typologies, at different stages of the course of life and in different cultures. Reflections based on scientific data on the new models of family configurations present today, and their implications for the development and psychological well-being of children, are not only important but also necessary.

References

• Abramovay, M., & Castro, M. G. (2015). Ser jovem no Brasil hoje: políticas e perfis da juventude brasileira. Cadernos Adenauer, 24, 13-25.
• Abuchaim, B. O., Porto, J. A., & Melo, J. S. (2016). Importância dos vínculos familiares na primeira infância: Estudo II Fundação Maria Cecília Souto Vidigal. Recuperado em 14 de setembro de 2022. https://www.mds.gov.br>WP_VinculosFamiliares
  » https://www.mds.gov.br>WP_VinculosFamiliare
• Alves, A. P., & Arpini, D. M. (2017). A conjugalidade e os conflitos vivenciados a partir do recasamento. Pensando Famílias, 21(1), 3-19. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/penf/v21n1/v21n1a02.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/penf/v21n1/v21n1a02.pdf
• Anjos, J., Gomes, L., Oliveira, M., & Silva, H. (2019). Crenças e atitudes sobre a velhice: Infância, adolescência, avós e a intergeracionalidade. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Envelhecimento Humano, 16(1), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.5335/rbceh.v16i1.9765
  » https://doi.org/10.5335/rbceh.v16i1.9765
• Antunes, S. A. F. (2016). As crianças perante as novas famílias: famílias monoparentais vs famílias tradicionais. Um estudo exploratório [Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade de Évora]. http://hdl.handle.net/10174/19413
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10174/19413
• Araújo, A. C. L. (2019). Troca intergeracional entre avós e netos: um olhar da Terapia Ocupacional [Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso]. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília-DF. https://bdm.unb.br/bitstream/10483/ 22734/1/2018_AnaCarolineLaurentinoAraujo.pdf
  » https://bdm.unb.br/bitstream/10483/ 22734/1/2018_AnaCarolineLaurentinoAraujo.pdf
• Araújo, G. M. S., & Aiello, A. L. R. (2013). Rede social de apoio de mães com deficiência intelectual. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26(1), 752-761. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000400016
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000400016
• Arrais, A. L., & Vieira-Santos, S. (2021). Envolvimento paterno em pais de crianças em idade escolar: relação com estresse parental, apoio social e variáveis sociodemográficas. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 37, e37313. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e37313
  » https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e37313
• Arrais, R. H., Gomes I. C., & Campos, E. M. P. (2019). A monoparentalidade por opção e seus aspectos psicossociais: Estudo de revisão integrativa. Revista SPAGESP, 20(1), 39-53. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-29702019000100004&lng=pt
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-29702019000100004&lng=pt
• Arriagada, I. (2009). La diversidade y desigualdade de las famílias latino-americanas. Revista Latino-americana de Estudos de Família 1, 9-21. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Colombia/juridicasysoc-uc/20190206081428/Rlef1_completa.pdf URL
  » http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Colombia/juridicasysoc-uc/20190206081428/Rlef1_completa.pdf URL
• Bernardi, D., Dias, M. V., Machado, R. N., & Féres-Carneiro, T. (2016). Definindo fronteiras no recasamento: Relato de uma experiência clínica. Pensando Famílias, 20(2), 43-55. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/penf/v20n2/v20n2a04.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/penf/v20n2/v20n2a04.pdf
• Brasil (2016). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988: texto constitucional promulgado em 5 de outubro de 1988, com as alterações determinadas pelas Emendas Constitucionais de Revisão nos 1 a 6/94, pelas Emendas Constitucionais nos 1/92 a 91/2016 e pelo Decreto Legislativo no 186/2008 https://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/item/id/518231
  » https://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/item/id/518231
• Costa, J. M., & Dias, C. M. S. B. (2012). Famílias recasadas: Mudanças, desafios e potencialidades. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 14(3), 72-87. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/ptp/v14n3/v14n3a06.pdf
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/ptp/v14n3/v14n3a06.pdf
• Dessen, M. A. (2010). Estudando a família em desenvolvimento: desafios conceituais e teóricos. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 30(spe), 202-219. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932010000500010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932010000500010
• Dessen, M. A., & Cerqueira-Silva, S. (2009). Desenvolvendo sistemas de categorias com dados de entrevistas. In L. Weber, & M. A. Dessen (Eds.), Pesquisando a família: Instrumentos para coleta e análise de dados (pp. 43-56). Juruá.
• Dias, M. B. (2017). Manual de direito das famílias Juspodivm.
• Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (ECA, 2009). Lei 12.010, de 03 de agosto de 2009 Brasília-DF: Ministério da Justiça. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato20072010/2009/ lei/l12010.htm#
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato20072010/2009/ lei/l12010.htm#
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE, 2016). Síntese de indicadores sociais. Uma análise das condições de vida da população brasileira-2016. Estudos & Pesquisas: Informação Demográfica e Socioeconômica, (36). https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv98965.pdf
  » https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv98965.pdf
• Landim, I., & Borsa, J. C. (2019). Concepções de família: Um estudo sobre as representações gráficas de crianças cariocas. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 19(2), 503-521. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2019.44284
  » https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2019.44284
• Louro, G. (2000). O corpo educado: pedagogias da sexualidade (2ª. ed.). Autêntica.
• Mcgoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (1995). Constituindo uma família recasada. In B. Carter, & M. Mcgoldrick (Eds.), As mudanças no ciclo de vida familiar (pp. 345-369). Artes Médicas.
• Moreira, L. V. C., Rabinovich, E. P., & Silva, C. N. (2009). Olhares de crianças baianas sobre família. Paideia, 19(42), 77-85. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/paideia/v1 9n42/10.pdf
  » https://www.scielo.br/pdf/paideia/v1 9n42/10.pdf
• Oliveira, I., & Mello, M. M. (2016). A imaginação das crianças diante do papel das madrastas nos contos de fadas. Revista da Sociedade de Psicologia do Rio Grande do Sul-Diadora, 5(1), 20-25. http://www.sprgs.org.br/diaphora/ojs/index.php/diaphora/article/view/120/125
  » http://www.sprgs.org.br/diaphora/ojs/index.php/diaphora/article/view/120/125
• Oliveira, N. H. D. (2009). Recomeçar: família, filhos e desafios Cultura Acadêmica. https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/109125/ISBN9788579830365.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  » https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/handle/11449/109125/ISBN9788579830365.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
• Paixão, F. J. D. (2013). Percepções e sentimentos de adolescentes criados por avós [Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade de Fortaleza https://uol.unifor.br/oul/ObraBdtdSiteTrazer.do?method=trazer&ns=true&obraCodigo=96482
  » https://uol.unifor.br/oul/ObraBdtdSiteTrazer.do?method=trazer&ns=true&obraCodigo=96482
• Passos, M. C. (2007). A constituição dos laços na família em tempos de individualismo. Revista Mental, 5(9), 117-130. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-44272007000200008&lng=pt&tlng=pt
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-44272007000200008&lng=pt&tlng=pt
• Ribeiro, F. S., & Cruz, F. M. L. (2013). Representações sociais de família por crianças na cidade de Recife. Psicologia e Sociedade, 25(3), 612-622. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/psoc/v25n3/15.pdf
  » https://www.scielo.br/pdf/psoc/v25n3/15.pdf
• Rizzoto, J. S., França, M. T. A., & Frio, G. S. (2018). Os arranjos familiares importam no momento de decidir em qual rede de ensino matricular os filhos? Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População, 35(1), e0066. https://dx.doi.org/1020947/S102-3098a0066
  » https://dx.doi.org/1020947/S102-3098a0066
• Saboia, A. L., Cobo, B., & Matos, G. G. (2012). Desafios e possibilidade da investigação sobre os novos arranjos familiares e a metodologia para investigação de família no censo 2010 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística-IBGE. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv58987.pdf
  » https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv58987.pdf
• Santos, C. V. M., Campana, N. T. C., & Gomes, I. C. (2019). Cuidado parental igualitário: Revisão de literatura e construção conceitual. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 35, e35311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e35311
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e35311
• Santos, J. B., & Santos, M. S. C. (2009). Família monoparental brasileira. Revista Jurídica, 10(92), pp. 01-30. https://emescam.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/rees_006.pdf
  » https://emescam.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/rees_006.pdf
• Solari, S. S. (2017). Cuidados y subjetivación de género. Un análisis de discurso de las mujeres que constituyen hogares monoparentales con hijos pequeños. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 7(1), 141-168. http://www.scielo.edu.uy/pdf/pcs/v7n1/1688-7026-pcs-7-01-00141.pdf
  » http://www.scielo.edu.uy/pdf/pcs/v7n1/1688-7026-pcs-7-01-00141.pdf
• Vieira, L., Neumann, A. P., & Zordan, E. P. (2019). O divórcio e o recasamento dos pais na percepção dos filhos adolescentes. Pensando famílias, 23(1), 121-136. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-494X20190001000 10&lng=pt&tlng=pt
  » http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-494X20190001000 10&lng=pt&tlng=pt
• Yassue, I. (2010). A família na Constituição Federal de 1988 A nova perspectiva do Direito de Família "Civil-Constitucional" engloba valores e princípios mais abrangentes, alcançando direitos fundamentais Recuperado em 14 de setembro de 2022. https://www.direitonet.com.br/artigos/exibir/5640/A-familia-na-Constituicao-Federal-de1988
  » https://www.direitonet.com.br/artigos/exibir/5640/A-familia-na-Constituicao-Federal-de1988

• Data availability statement

  The author does not authorize the disclosure of research data.

Edited by

Responsible editor

Asdrubal Borges Formiga Sobrinho

Data availability

The author does not authorize the disclosure of research data.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 July 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  16 Sept 2022
• Accepted
  16 Nov 2022