I sometimes wonder if it would have been better for my youngest son if I had not married Laura.

Well, technically speaking, he is not my son. His biological father lives somewhere in Aroostook County and is averse to both work and financial responsibility.

For more than 15 years, I have consistently treated Tim and Matthew as my own sons. I attended the parent teacher conferences. I brag about their accomplishments. I lay awake at night worrying that they will not make the right decisions. I helped with the homework. I taught them to drive and how to kayak. I tell them that I love them. I scold them and discipline them. I never hesitate to give my time, money or other resources to ensure that they are okay.

But they are not my children, and while that may seem cold and misguided, it is a reality that I must accept in order to avoid resentment. It is reality, and at all costs, I must cling to reality as much as possible.

Sometimes I like to fantasize that I live in a different reality. In most ways, our family ignores the fact that we are a “blended family.” The kids call me Dad.

For all intents and purposes, our family functions no differently than any other nuclear family, where both biological parents live in a house with their own children.

But real life is rarely like the Brady Bunch. There are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent.

If I could go back in time, I would not change a thing. And before we proceed any further it’s important to remember that our family is not unique. In fact, so-called traditional families are being out-paced by non-traditional families.

Using data from the American Community Survey and the Census Bureau, analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 46 percent of children under 18 live in households headed by two heterosexual parents in their first marriage, compared to 1960 when 73 percent of children fit that description, and in 1980, when 61 percent did.

Translation: more than 50 percent of American families are non-traditional. The new normal.

A double standard: the step-parent trap

Because my youngest son chose not to be adopted or carry my last name (it was always their choice), there are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent. For example, I cannot sign any legal documents for them. I cannot authorize medical treatments. I have no custodial rights. When it comes to making many critical decisions, my approval is not necessary.  The government, for the most part, considers me a non-entity, and those things are reserved for biological parents.

But there is one notable exception, when the government is only more than happy to give full weight to my role as a step-parent.

And for those of you with college-age children, you can probably guess what that exception is: eligibility determination for federal student financial aid.

While I understand it must be increasingly difficult for the US Department of Education to determine the eligibility status for a growing number of unique family situations, I still think it is unfair that the government insists on considering my financial earnings and records to determine how much student aid Matthew can receive.

If the government were to adhere to recognizing only the legal parents, Matthew would qualify for considerably more financial aid.

A quick search on Google reveals that there are hundreds of stories out there about FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) and its unfairness to blended families.

A 2006 story in the New York Times reveals many of the complexities that non-traditional families face when attempting to secure financial aid for their household children.

“Which parent is responsible for college? What about stepparents’ income? Child support? Just because you think of your family one way doesn’t mean a college will agree. Each sets its own rules on how to define the family, and those definitions have substantial impact on how much money a student can get.”

Theoretically, if I divorced Laura in 2014 (but still lived with her in the same house), Matthew would qualify for more financial aid. The government looks at married couples, not roommates.

Thus, we have set up dysfunctional system that practically begs step parents to cheat, or more likely to avoid becoming step-parents altogether.

Matthew is 18 years old. If I married his mother last year, my income would count. Thus, if you a marry a woman with children that the government considers adults (old enough to sign legal documents, get married and register for the Selective Service) then the government assumes you are prepared to kick-in for their college education.

Does that make sense to you?

Now here’s the part that will make me seem like a cold, heartless bastard. I will not pay for Matthew’s college tuition. This was a conversation Laura and I had before we were married.

I will, however, help Matthew go to college. He can live at home completely rent free during the entire time he is registered as a full-time student. I will feed him and give him money for books, transportation costs, etc. This would greatly reduce the cost of his education if he were to attend the University of New England, the University of Southern Maine or Southern Maine Community College.

But if Matthew chooses a school beyond the logistical realities of living at home, it is up to him to find a way to swing those costs: student loans, grants, scholarships and (gasp) working.

It is my firm belief that this approach will benefit my youngest son by introducing him to the real world while providing him with a safe cushion to fall back upon.

For the record, this is the same approach I would use if I were Matthew’s father instead of his step-father.

So, in the end is Matthew better off because I married his mother so many years ago, or is he worse off?

Considering that I have supported him for most of his life and always treated him like I would my own child, I would say he is ultimately better off, even if the government will penalize him because of my income. And that, folks, is the real step-parent trap.