Family, Limits, Parentification, Subsystems, Single-parenthood

The parentification concept was defined for the first time by Minuchin et al. in 1967 (quoted in ^{Hooper and Wallace, 2009}), and it means that parents resign their functions and leave the children in charge of them, or completely leaving their family in a psychological and/or physical way. Parentification is understood as assigning parental roles to one or more children of a family system or the assumption of that role by one of them. ^{Espina and Pumar (1996}) indicate that children to escape from their stage of development, but also express the need and hope for change, taking responsibilities for which they are no ready at the expense of their own emotional development. From a systemic point of view, there are two factors present in parentification, the first correspond to specific patterns in which children are expected to fulfill the emotional needs from their parents, and the second is related to additional situations that increase the emotional needs of parents for not receiving enough support from their spouse.

As we go deeper in the previously mentioned matter, according to ^{Espina and Pumar (1996}), reverse parenting happens in parents with unresolved emotional needs and who perceive their own parents as cruel and/or uncaring. The theory of Bowen (^{Rodríguez-González and Martínez, 2015}) speaks about multigenerational transmission, being the emotional problems of the family system the result of that transmission. Therefore, as these authors expose, it is important to consider the personal experience of the parents, however, Bowen allows us to glimpse even the influence of previous generations.

Parentification can emerge as a response to the way family subsystems are delimited by both, rigid limits in the marital subsystem (Gunderson, Kerr and Englund 1980, quoted in ^{Jurkovic, 1997}), and ambiguous limits between the parental subsystem and the children (Kerig, 2005 quoted in ^{Hooper, L'Abate, Sweeney, Gianesini, Jankowski, 2013}).

There are two different types of parentification: instrumental and emotional. The first one implies that the child is left in charge of the household chores such as shopping, household managing, cooking, cleaning, etc. (Hooper, 2007 quoted in ^{Engelhardt, 2012}). This type is the less harmful, it increases the feeling of achievement and competence when parents encourage such conducts (Aldridge, 2006; Hooper, 2007 quoted in Engelhardt, 2012). On the other hand, in emotional parentification the child provides the parents with emotional support, which fulfills their psychological needs in situations of stress or crisis. This represents a greater risk for the child as he or she is not developmentally ready for this task (Hooper, 2007 quoted in Engelhardt, 2012).

According to the characterization exposed by ^{Blazek (2016}), the apparition of the parentification phenomenon is possible in single-parent families (Jurkovic, Thirkield and Morrell, 2001; Peris and Emery, 2005), as well as when one or both parents suffer from chronical diseases (Stein, Riedel&Rotheram-Borus, 2004; Duryea, 2007; Tompkins, 2007; Wallerstein, 1985), or the same happens with the brothers or sisters (Oznobishin and Kurman, 2009), among others.

If we observe the parentification process as a continuum, it is possible to establish that all the family members have been exposed to such process to some extent (^{Williams, 2010}). However, this turns into a problem in many situations, for example, when children are left in charge of excessive responsibilities that surpass their capabilities according to their developmental level; when parents or caregivers are negligent and do not consider what is best for the child; when the child is not entitled in his or her role and when parents play a childlike role (Mika, Bergner, and Baum, 1987 quoted Williams, 2010).

Another factor to be considered and that allows us to distinguish between a parentification with negative results from the one that can be better tolerated by children, is the one that temporarily emerges while the family system adapts to the stressors or the changes that must face, for example, in a divorce situation, the death of one of the family members, etc. (^{Jankowski, Hooper, Sandage and Hannah, 2011}).

^{Selvini, Boscolo, Cecchin and Prata (1991}) state that parentification can be functional for a child, however, it depends on the transactional context in which parentification appears. Children can practice and learn from this role when this is not exchangeable and not rigidly assumed.

Empirical Framework

According to the study about cultural models of parenting in Chile “Modelos culturales de crianza en Chile” (^{Universidad de Chile, World Vision, 2018}), it is observed that the predominant household composition is the two-parent nuclear family (49.9%), followed by extended families (mother, father, children and other relatives, with 16.1%), and in third place single-parent families with female household heads (14.1%). This study do not quantifies single-parent families with male household heads, maybe because the percentage is very low compared with the female percentage. However, this research allows us to glimpse how relationships between parents and children are configured, including as well other relationships that children establish with other significant adults that live in the household. It can also be inferred that the care of children is still very related to the female gender, being the mother the first to correct or teach, and also being the one who the children turn to when feeling in trouble or sad. In 42.4% of the sample, the mother is the one who disciplines and provides emotional support; 13.2% pointed out that it was the father who corrected them and the mother who provided emotional support; 11.5% stated that the mother plays a disciplinary role and the father provides emotional support; and in 11% of the cases the mother provided discipline but had no one to turn to when emotional support was needed. It is important to note that this last configuration can be showing parentification, since it not only happens when the child must provide emotional support to other family members, but also when he or she must emotionally support him or herself. In single-parent families with female household heads, the configuration of the mother that disciplines but no one providing emotional support increases to 15.6%, which is consistent with the studies about parentification pointing to single-parenthood as one of the intervening factors.

As mentioned in Panorama CASEN. Households and Well-Being: Analysis of changes in the family structure (²⁰¹⁵). Of the total number of households in Chile, 14.5% correspond to single-parent families, of which 13% are headed by females and 1.5% by males.

Regarding the demographic area to which the studied families belong, the CENSUS (National Statistics Institute (^{INE), 2017}) showed that in the Ñuble region exist 21.924 single-parent nuclear families which represent 13.4% of the total number of households in the region.

Data analysis, ethical and quality criteria

A content analysis was used, which is characterized for being an “empirical approach of methodologically controlled analysis of texts inside its contexts of communication, following step by step the analytical rules of content and models, without quantification” (Mayring, 2000 quoted in ^{Cáceres, 2003}, p. 56).

As previously mentioned, a rhombus or diamond design was used, for which it was first necessary to deconstruct the subject of study by a review of the available literature. Subsequently, a framework of reference was developed as a guide for the operationalization of the phenomenon to be studied, in other words, “the definition of the instruments, the identification of the units to be observed and the attributes of the analysis units” (^{Henríquez and Barriga, 2005}, p. 165).

The operational construction is found between the previously mentioned development of analysis and the synthetic stage. In this research, codification was used as a way to transform information into data, considering the constructs found in the framework of reference, while including emerging codes of the experiences gathered. Following what is exposed above, the codes were related and organized in order to reconstruct the deconstructed subject of study (^{Henríquez and Barriga, 2005}).

The last stage included the synthetic process, which implied an interpretation of the obtained data guided by the framework of reference in order to fulfill the objectives proposed by this investigation, which in this case were to know, identify, inquire and describe (^{Henríquez and Barriga, 2005}).

The quality criteria were safeguarded by the triangulation between investigators, the triangulation of theory, and the critical judgment of the academic advisor, besides the use of the “clarification” verbal technique during the conduction of the interviews, all of these in order to confirm that the investigators fully and truthfully understand what is being expressed by the interviewed. At the same time, the dependence criterion is evidenced by the assessments with the thesis supervisor, which ensures a proper development of the research process.

Regarding ethical criteria, according to what is stated by ^{González (2002}), this research presents clinical and social value, since it contributes to the deconstruction of prejudices about families with parentified children and to take a more comprehensive look at this phenomenon, besides the creation of a space for the learning and development of parenting skills for the parents of these families. Scientific validity is given by the proper realization of a project, which involved internal and external supervision in every stage of this process. In addition, the participants were equally chosen using the methods described in the methodology. Once the results of this research were obtained, each of the interviewed mothers received psychoeducation about parentification and stages of human development. All of the foregoing was safeguarded by an informed consent that was written and signed.

Family 1

Family N°1 is made of the mother and her two children, D. (18 years) and J.P. (7 years). The family income is earned from the formal work of the female household head and her side jobs. For this reason she spends little time in the house (Figure 1).

Figure1 

Family 2

Family N°2 is made of the mother and her three children, F. (26 years), V. (18 years) and C. (10 years). Family income is provided by pensions received by the mother for her children, including the disability pension of F., who is diagnosed with Moderate Intellectual Deficit (Figure 2).

Figure 2 

Family 3

Family N°3 is made of the mother and her daughter, L. (6 years). Despite the fact that the mother states that she lives with her partner and her brother, in any moment these people assume care of L. On the other hand, the mother said anything about how family income was provided. Nowadays, she has been unemployed for one month and a half (Figure 3).

Table 3 

Family 4

Family Nº 4 is made of the mother and her two daughters, C. (14 years) and R. (11 years). Family income is obtained from the work of the mother (Nursing technician) (Figure 4).

Figure 4 

It is necessary to clarify that due to the number of studied families, and being consistent with the phenomenological characteristics of a research, the obtained results in the study are summarized in this article and correspond only to the studied families and their particular characteristics; therefore, these results are not representative or applicable to other families.

Suggestions for future investigations

Children should be integrated in the research since through their testimony one can access into the way they perceive parentification and how this phenomenon affects them, in order to have a panoramic view of all the family subsystem.

Single-parent families with a male household head should be included in order to study the differences that could exist between them and those with female household heads.

A wider sample should be used in order to generalize the results.