PARENTING IN NEW FAMILY FORMS

Susan Golombok

Centre for Family Research

University of Cambridge

United Kingdom

Corresponding author: Golombok, Susan ([email protected])

 ABSTRACT

This paper reviews research on parenting and child development in new family forms

including families created by assisted reproductive technologies, same-sex parent families,

and families headed by single mothers by choice. The research is examined in the context of

the issues and concerns that have been raised regarding these families. The findings not

only contest popular assumptions about the psychological consequences for children of

being raised in new family forms but also challenge the supremacy of the traditional family.

It is concluded that the quality of family relationships and the wider social environment

appear to be more influential in children’s psychological development and adjustment than

are the number, gender, sexual orientation or biological relatedness of their parents.
INTRODUCTION

The traditional nuclear family comprising a heterosexual married couple with biologically

related children is in decline. Instead, a growing number of children are raised by cohabiting

parents, by single parents and by stepparents, with many children moving in and out of

different family structures as they grow up. These families are often referred to collectively

as “non-traditional families”, and result mainly from parental separation or divorce and the

formation of new cohabiting or marital relationships. Non-traditional families have been

widely studied [1]. The focus of the present paper is on “new families”, the term used to

refer to family forms that either did not exist or were hidden from society until the latter

part of the twentieth century, and that represent a more fundamental shift away from

traditional family structures than do non-traditional families formed by relationship

breakdown and reformation [2]. These include families created by assisted reproductive

technologies involving in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg donation, donor insemination, embryo

donation and surrogacy, as well as lesbian mother families, gay father families and single

mothers by choice. This paper will focus on parenting in “new” rather than “non-traditional”

families.

FAMILIES CREATED BY ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Since the birth of the first baby through in vitro fertilization [IVF] in 1978 [3], more than 5

million children have been born through assisted reproductive technologies [4]. IVF involves

the fertilization of the mother’s egg with the father’s sperm in the laboratory and the

transfer of the resulting embryo(s) to the mother’s womb. Although IVF has attracted much

publicity, assisted reproduction involving reproductive donation, i.e. the donation of

gametes (sperm or eggs), embryos, or the hosting of a pregnancy for another woman
(surrogacy), has had a more fundamental impact on the family. Children born through egg

donation lack a genetic link to their mother whereas children born through sperm donation

(donor insemination) lack a genetic connection to their father. With embryo donation, both

the egg and sperm are donated and neither parent is genetically related to the child.

Surrogacy involves a woman hosting a pregnancy for another woman and the children lack a

gestational link to their mother. They also lack a genetic link to their mother if the

surrogate’s egg was used in their conception.

It has often been suggested that the creation of families through reproductive

donation may be detrimental to positive family functioning [5, 6]. In order to investigate the

consequences of reproductive donation for parenting and child development, a longitudinal

study of families formed by egg donation, donor insemination and surrogacy was initiated at

the millennium. Contrary to the concerns that had been raised, the findings indicated more

positive parent–child relationships in these families when the children were in their

preschool years than in the comparison group of natural conception families, irrespective of

the type of reproductive donation used [7-11]. The children themselves showed high levels

of psychological adjustment but did not differ from the naturally conceived children in spite

of their experience of highly involved parenting. In the middle school years, by which time

children show an awareness of biological inheritance [12, 13] and of the meaning and

implications of the absence of a biological connection to parents [14], the families continued

to function well, although the reproductive donation families no longer showed more

positive parent-child relationships than did the natural conception families and there was

evidence of raised levels of psychological problems among mothers who had not been open

with their children about their biological origins [15-17]. By adolescence, mothers in

surrogacy families showed less negative parenting and reported greater acceptance of their
adolescent children and fewer problems in family relationships as a whole compared to

gamete donation mothers [18]. Within the gamete donation families, less positive

relationships were found between mothers and adolescents in egg donation families than in

donor insemination families. Although there were no differences in psychological well-being

between adolescents in the different family types, parents who had been open with their

children about their origins from an early age had more positive relationships with them at

adolescence [19].

In some families created through donor insemination, parents and children search

for information about, and desire contact with, their sperm donor [20-22]. This is motivated

by curiosity about his characteristics and family background. It is not known, as yet, whether

families formed through egg donation are similarly interested in their egg donor. For

adolescents born through donor insemination, secure attachment relationships with parents

appear to be associated with greater acceptance of their donor conception [23].

FAMILIES WITH SAME-SEX PARENTS

Studies of parenting by lesbian mothers were initiated in the 1970s. At that time, it was

argued that lesbian mothers would be less nurturing than heterosexual mothers and would

show higher rates of psychological disorder, and that their children would develop

psychological problems as a result. It was also thought that the children of lesbian mothers

would show atypical gender development such that boys would be less masculine in their

identity and behavior, and girls less feminine, than boys and girls from heterosexual homes.

Although the initial studies were prompted by custody disputes involving lesbian mothers,

similar concerns have been raised in relation to lesbian women becoming mothers through

adoption and by donor insemination.

 There is now a large body of research showing that lesbian mothers are just as likely

to have good mental health and to have positive relationships with their children as are

heterosexual mothers, and that their children are no more likely to show adjustment

difficulties, poor performance at school or atypical gender-role behavior than are children

with heterosexual parents [24-26]. These findings have been replicated in general

population samples [24-31] and have also been confirmed through meta-analyses [32, 33].

The circumstances of gay fathers are somewhat different from those of lesbian

mothers in that it is rare for fathers, whether heterosexual or gay, to be primary caregivers.

Although research on fathering has shown that the constructs of fathering and mothering,

involving positive engagement, warmth and responsiveness, are largely the same, and that

heterosexual fathers influence their children in similar ways to mothers [34], fathers are

generally believed to be less suited to parenting than are mothers [35]. Moreover, gay

fathers may be exposed to greater stigmatization regarding their sexual identity than are

lesbian mothers [36, 37]. Contrary to this viewpoint, a recent study of the brain activity of

heterosexual mothers, heterosexual fathers and adoptive gay fathers, all of whom had

young babies, found heightened activity in areas of the brain associated with emotion

processing in heterosexual mothers and increased activity in areas associated with cognitive

processing in heterosexual fathers, whereas the gay fathers showed increased activity in

both of these regions [38]. These findings add to the emerging body of evidence that

parenting influences brain activity, and suggest that gay fathers who are primary caregivers

may respond similarly to both heterosexual mothers and fathers.

Studies of gay father families have largely focused on families formed through

adoption. In a study of the psychological adjustment of 2-year-olds, no differences were

found between children with gay, lesbian and heterosexual parents [39]. Farr and colleagues

[40] found preschool children adopted in infancy by gay fathers to be as well-adjusted as

those adopted by lesbian or heterosexual parents. In an observational assessment of family

play, the gay couples were rated as less supportive of the other parent, but also as less

undermining, than were the heterosexual couples [41]. In a comparison of adoptive gay

father, lesbian mother and heterosexual parent families with 3-9-year-old children, the

differences identified between family types indicated more positive parental wellbeing and

parent-child relationships, and lower levels of children’s externalizing problems, in gay

father families [42]. As stability and continuity of care are widely accepted to be

prerequisites of children’s secure attachment relationships with parents, it is noteworthy

that adoptive gay fathers were less likely to dissolve their relationship in the first 5 years of

parenthood than were comparison groups of lesbian and heterosexual adoptive couples

[43].

In recent years, the focus has turned from comparisons between same-sex and

heterosexual parent families to the study of variation within same-sex parent families,

particularly to the influence of parenting on children’s adjustment. The psychological well-

being of same-sex parents including the quality of the couple’s relationship, the quality of

parenting experienced by children and stigmatization of the family have all been associated

with children’s psychological adjustment. For example, higher levels of parenting stress and

lower levels of parental relationship quality were found to be associated with higher levels

of children’s behavioral problems in lesbian mother families [44] and parental depression,

relationship conflict and lack of preparation for the adoption were associated with

children’s emotional and behavioral problems in both lesbian mother and gay father
families [39]. In contrast, adolescents who had positive relationships with their same-sex

parents were more likely to be well-adjusted and functioning well at school [29, 30].

Stigmatization of same-sex parent families arising from parents’ sexual orientation

has been associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children [45-48]. Factors

that protect children against the negative effects of stigmatization include contact with

other children with same-sex parents, positive relationships with parents, peers and

extended family, supportive schools and communities, and legislation that is conducive to

the optimal functioning of same-sex parent families [45, 46, 48-50].

Investigations of parenting practices in same-sex parent families have found lesbian

and gay parents to share parenting more equally than do heterosexual parents [26, 51]. In

terms of relationship breakdown, lesbian and gay parents appear to show similar rates of

separation to heterosexual parents [52]. Although same-sex parents are involved in their

children’s schools, their level of involvement appears to be dependent on their acceptance

by other parents [53].

Regarding the use of assisted reproduction, a study of lesbian mother families

formed through donor conception found mothers to be generally satisfied with their choice

of a known, identifiable or anonymous sperm donor, with no differences in adolescent

adjustment according to the type of donor used [54]. A qualitative study of young adults

conceived using known sperm donors identified variation in how the donor was perceived;

some viewed him strictly as a donor and not as a member of their family, others saw him as

a member of their extended family but not as a parent, and yet others saw him as a father

[55]. In the first study of parenting in gay father families formed through surrogacy and egg

donation [56], gay fathers showed high levels of parenting quality. Similar to the finding of
Farr & Patterson [41], gay fathers and their children showed some differences in dyadic

interaction in comparison to lesbian mother families.

SINGLE MOTHERS BY CHOICE

Parental divorce or separation is the most common reason for children to be raised in

single-mother families and there has also been a rise in the number of children born to

single unmarried mothers as a result of unplanned pregnancies. Both of these types of

single-mother family have been associated with raised levels of parenting difficulties [57,

58]. However, an increasing number of single women are choosing to parent alone and have

children through donor insemination. These mothers, often referred to as “single mothers

by choice” or “solo mothers”, have not experienced marital conflict and are less likely to

have experienced the economic hardship or psychological problems that commonly result

from marital breakdown and unplanned single parenthood. Nevertheless, their children

often grow up not only without a father but also without knowing the identity of their

sperm donor. There is little research on this new family form. However, a comparison

between solo mother families and two-parent families, all with donor-conceived children,

found no differences in parenting quality apart from lower mother-child conflict in solo

mother families [58]. Although the children in solo mother and two-parent families did not

differ in psychological adjustment, parenting stress and financial difficulties were associated

with children’s psychological difficulties in both family types.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the studies reviewed above show that new family forms are characterized by

positive parenting and well-adjusted children. This is perhaps not surprising as the children

were much-wanted by their parents and, by necessity, planned. From a theoretical

perspective, what these studies tell us is that the number, gender, sexual orientation and

biological relatedness of parents to their children are less influential in children’s

psychological development than are family processes such as the quality of family

relationships and the social environment in which the children are raised (see Figure 1).

Future research would benefit from less reliance on self-report measures and greater use of

observational, neurobiological, and digital ambulatory approaches to the assessment of

child development and parent-child relationships in new family forms.

Conflict of interest statement

Nothing declared

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award [097857/Z/11/Z]
References

1. Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2015). Socio-emotional development in changing family

contexts. In R. M. L. (Series Ed.) & M. E. Lamb (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology and developmental science: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality
development (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2. Golombok, S. (2015). Modern Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Steptoe, P. C., & Edwards, R. G. (1978). Birth after the reimplantation of a human
embryo. The Lancet, 1978–1978.
4. Adamson, D. (2012). ICMART world reporting: Preliminary 2008 data. 28th ESHRE
Annual Conference, Istanbul.
5. Cahn, N. (2009). Old lessons for a new world: Applying adoption research and
experiences to assisted reproductive technology. New York: Eban B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute.
6. Feast, J. (2003). Using and not losing the messages from the adoption experience for
donor-assisted conception. Human Fertility, 6(1), 41–45.
7. Golombok, S., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., Murray, C., & MacCallum, F. (2005). Families
created by gamete donation: Follow-up at age 2. Human Reproduction, 20(1), 286–
293.
8. Golombok, S., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., Jadva, V., Murray, C., Rust, J., et al. (2004).
Parenting infants conceived by gamete donation. Journal of Family Psychology,
18(3), 443–452.
9. Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Murray, C., Lycett, E., & Jadva, V. (2006). Surrogacy
families: Parental functioning, parent-child relationships and children’s
psychological development at age 2. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
47(2), 213–222.
10. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Rust, J. (2006). Non-
genetic and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent-child
relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at
age 3. Human Reproduction, 21(7), 1918–1924.
11. Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., MacCallum, F., & Lycett, E. (2004). Families
created through surrogacy arrangements: Parent-child relationships in the 1st year
of life. Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 400–411.
12. Gregg, E., Solomon, A., Johnson, S. C., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1996). Like father,
like son: Young children’s understanding of how and why offspring resemble their
parents. Child Development, 67, 151–171.
13. Williams, J. M., & Smith, L. A. (2010). Concepts of kinship relations and inheritance
in childhood and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(3),
523–546.
14. Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Children’s understanding of adoption: Developmental and
clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 200–207.
15. Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Marks, A., & Jadva, V. (2011).
Families created through surrogacy: Mother-child relationships and children’s
psychological adjustment at age 7. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1579–1588.
16. Golombok, S., Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Mellish, L., Marks, A., et al. (2011).
Children conceived by gamete donation: The impact of openness about donor
 conception on psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships at age 7.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25(2), 230–239.
17. Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., Roman, G., & Jadva, V. (2013). Children born
through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of child adjustment. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 653–660.
18. Golombok, S., Ilioi, E., Blake, L., Roman, G., & Jadva, V. (under revision). A
longitudinal study of families formed through reproductive donation: Parent-
adolescent relationships and adolescent adjustment at age 14. Developmental
Psychology.

 This paper presents findings at adolescence from the only longitudinal study of
parenting in families created by reproductive donation.

19. Ilioi, E., Blake, L., Jadva, V., Roman, G., & Golombok, S. (under revision). The role of
age of disclosure of biological origins in the psychological wellbeing of adolescents
conceived by reproductive donation: A longitudinal study from age 1 to age 14.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
20. Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2009). Gamete donation:
Parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Human
Reproduction, 24(3), 505–516.
21. Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2010). Experiences of offspring
searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive
Biomedicine Online, 20(4), 523–532
22. Scheib, J. E., & Ruby, A. (2008). Contact among families who share the same sperm
donor. Fertility & Sterility, 90(1), 33–43.
23. Slutsky, J., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Persaud, S., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kramer, W., &
Golombok, S. (2016). Integrating Donor Conception into Identity Development:
Adolescents in fatherless families. Fertility and Sterility, 106(1), 202-208.

 This is the first study to examine the relation between security of

attachment to parents and acceptance of being donor-conceived.

24. Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the
family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25. Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and
policy. The American Psychologist, 64(8), 727–736.
26. Patterson, C. J. (2013). Sexual orientation and family lives. In C. J. Patterson & A. R.
D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
27. Potter, D. (2012). Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 556–571.
28. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2006). Delinqency, victimization, and substance
use among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology,
20(3), 526–530.
29. Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with
female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 117–126.
30. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment,
school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents.
Child Development, 75(6), 1886–1898.
31. Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through
school. Demography, 47(3), 755–775.
32. Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for
children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(3),
385–407.
33. Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., & Ahn, S. (2014). Children and adolescents with same-
gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 11(1), 1-34.
34. Fagan, J., Day., R., Lamb, M., & Cabrera, N. J. (2014). Should researchers
conceptualize differently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers?
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 390-405.
35. Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 72(1), 3–22.
36. Goldberg, A. (2010). Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Studying complex families in context.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 29–34.
37. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health:
lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 139–50.
38. Abraham, E., Hendler, T., Shapira-Lichter, I., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Zagoory-Sharon, O.,
& Feldman, R. (2014). Father’s brain is sensitive to childcare experiences.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1-6.
39. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early
placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of
Family Psychology, 27(3), 431–42.
40. Farr, R., Forssell, S., & Patterson, C. (2010). Parenting and child development in
adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental
Science, 14(3), 164–178.

 This study of parenting in adoptive gay father, lesbian mother and

heterosexual parent families is based on representative samples of these
families.

41. Farr, R., & Patterson, C. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual
couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84(4),
1226–1240.
42. Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2014).
Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 85(2), 456–468.
43. Goldberg, A., & Garcia, R. (2015). Predictors of relationship dissolution in lesbian,
gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 394-
404.
44. Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among
children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers.
Child Development, 69(2), 443–457.
45. Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., Peyser, H., & van Balen, F. (2008). The USA National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS): Homophobia, psychological adjustment,
and protective factors. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(4), 455–471.
46. Bos, H., & Gartrell, N. (2010). Adolescents of the USA National Longitudinal Lesbian
Family Study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of
stigmatization? Family Process, 49(4), 559–572.
47. Bos, H., Gartrell, N., & van Gelderen, L. (2013). Adolescents in lesbian families: DSM-
oriented scale scores and stigmatization. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
25(2), 121–140.
48. van Gelderen, L., Gartrell, N., Bos, H., & Hermanns, J. (2012). Stigmatization and
promotive factors in relation to psychological health and life satisfaction of
adolescents in planned lesbian families. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 809-827.
49. Lick, D. J., Tornello, S. L., Riskind, R. G., Schmidt, K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2012).
Social climate for sexual minorities predicts well-being among heterosexual offspring
of lesbian and gay parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9, 99-112.
50. Patterson, C. J., Riskind, R. G., & Tornello, S. L. (2014). Sexual orientation and
parenting: A global perspective. In A. Abela & J. Walker (Eds.). Contemporary Issues
in Family Studies: Global Perspectives on Partnetships. Parenting and support in a
changing world. New York: Wiley/Blackwell.
51. Tornello, S. L., Kruczkowski, S. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2015). Division of labor and
relationship quality among male same-sex couples who became fathers via
surrogacy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(4), 375-394.
52. Goldberg, A., & Garcia, R. (2015). Predictors of relationship dissolution among
lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 29,
394-404.

 Provides important data on the issue of whether lesbian and gay couples
with children are more likely to separate than are heterosexual parents
and factors associated with relationship breakdown.

53. Goldberg, A., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). Predictors of school engagement among lesbian,
gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents of kindergarteners. Journal of School
Psychology, 52, 463-478.
54. Gartrell, N., Bos, H., Goldberg, A., Deck, A., & van Rijn-van Gelderen, L. (2015).
Satisfaction with known, open-identity, or unknown sperm donors: reports from
lesbian mothers of 17-year-old adolescents. Fertility and Sterility, 103(1), 242-248.
55. Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013). Donor, dad, or …? Young adults with lesbian
parents’ experiences with known donors. Family Process, 52(2), 338–350.
56. Golombok, S., Blake, L., Slutsky, J., Raffanello, E., Roman, G., & Ehrhardt, A. (under
revision). Gay father families through surrogacy: Parenting and child adjustment.
Child Development.
57. Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and
Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.
58. Amato, P. R. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social,
and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75–
96.
59. Golombok, S., Zadeh, S., Imrie, S., Smith, V., & Freeman, T. (2016). Single mothers by
choice: Mother-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Journal
of Family Psychology, 30(4), 409-418.

 Presents findings from the largest controlled study to date of parenting by

single mothers by choice.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of bidirectional influences of family structure and family
processes on child development.