What We Know | What do the scholarly rearch say about the well-beg of children wh gay or lbian parents? | What We Know

Contents:

• LBIAN AND GAY PARENTG
• WHAT DO THE SCHOLARLY REARCH SAY ABOUT THE WELL-BEG OF CHILDREN WH GAY OR LBIAN PARENTS?
• KIDS OF GAY PARENTS FARE WORSE, STUDY FDS, BUT REARCH DRAWS FIRE OM EXPERTS
• GROWG UP WH GAY PARENTS: WHAT IS THE BIG AL?*
• ARE THE FATHERS ALRIGHT? A SYSTEMATIC AND CRIL REVIEW OF STUDI ON GAY AND BISEXUAL FATHERHOOD
• A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF GAY, LBIAN, AND BISEXUAL REARCH SAMPL COUPLE AND FAY THERAPY JOURNALS

LBIAN AND GAY PARENTG

Unlike heterosexual parents and their children, however, lbian and gay parents and their children are often subject to prejudice bee of their sexual orientatn that n turn judg, legislators, profsnals, and the public agast them, sometim rultg negative out, such as loss of physil ctody, rtrictns on visatn, and prohibns agast adoptn (ACLU Lbian and Gay Rights Project, 2002; Appell, 2003; Patterson, Fulcher, & Waright, 2002). Three ncerns have historilly been associated wh judicial cisn makg ctody ligatn and public polici erng foster re and adoptn: the belief that lbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lbians are ls maternal than heterosexual women, and that lbians' and gay men's relatnships wh sexual partners leave ltle time for ongog parent-child teractns (ACLU Lbian and Gay Rights Project, 2002; Falk, 1989, 1994; Patterson et al., 2002; Patterson & Reddg, 1996). Three aspects of sexual inty are nsired the rearch: genr inty, which ncerns a person's self-intifitn as male or female; genr-role behavr, which ncerns the extent to which a person's activi, occupatns, and the like are regard by the culture as mascule, feme, or both; and sexual orientatn, which refers to a person's choice of sexual partners, who may be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972; Ste, 1993).

(From the chapter) social science theory and empiril rearch to scribe and expla psychologil heterosexism the US today / addrs the attudal and belief ponents of psychologil heterosexism, wh special attentn to gnive and motivatnal procs / behavral aspects of psychologil heterosexism-specifilly, acts of vlence agast lbians and gay men-are discsed / the nsequenc of psychologil heterosexism are nsired. (From the chapter) gay fatherhood has emerged to public awarens and brought qutns / who are gay fathers, and how do they bee parents / what kd of parents do gay men make, and how do their children velop / what special challeng and strs do gay fathers and their children face daily life, and how do they pe wh them / what n acquatance wh gay fathers and their children offer to the unrstandg of parenthood, child velopment, and fay life / although rearch leratur bearg on such qutns are que new and relatively sparse, existg studi addrs some issu raised by the existence of gay fathers.

Three key fdgs stood out this study: children of married, oppose-sex parents have a high graduatn rate pared to the others; children of lbian fai have a very low graduatn rate pared to the others; and children the other four typ of livg arrangements (mon law marriage, gay uple, sgle mother, and sgle father) are siar to each other and fall between the extrem of married heterosexual parents and lbian upl.

WHAT DO THE SCHOLARLY REARCH SAY ABOUT THE WELL-BEG OF CHILDREN WH GAY OR LBIAN PARENTS?

The study is noteworthy for several reasons: (1) his study sample was large, reprentative, and populatn-based (not a small, self-selected group); (2) Regnes studied the rpons of adult children rather than askg same-sex parents to scribe how their young pennt children are dog; and (3) he was able to draw parisons on up to 80 measur for children who had lived wh (or had) parents who fell to one of eight tegori—tact fai wh both blogil parents who were married to each other, lbian mothers, gay fathers, heterosexual sgle parents, parents who later divorced, habg parents, parents who adopted the rponnt, and other (such as a ceased parent). After almost 40 years of rearch, there is still ntroversy over the effects for children growg up wh a gay or a lbian parent, and several wtern untri still prohib same-genr upl' accs to alternative rout to parentg based on the argument that the fay nfiguratns may hr normative child velopment (Fewa et al., 2015; Takács et al., 2016) easier accs to donor sematn, many lbian and bisexual women beme mothers eher via clil-based reproductive technologi or self-sematn wh donated semen. In this sense, gay upl are evaluated by others as beg ls emotnally stable, as havg fewer parentg petenc, and as creatg an environment that is aquate, and even harmful for children (Crawford and Solliday, 1996) sharp ntrast wh the perceptns, a recent meta-analysis explorg the impact of gay fatherhood on children's psychologil adjtment has found that parison wh children of heterosexual parents, children of gay fathers may even fare better on some psychologil domas, namely monstrate ls ternalizg and externalizg problems (Miller et al., 2017).

KIDS OF GAY PARENTS FARE WORSE, STUDY FDS, BUT REARCH DRAWS FIRE OM EXPERTS

Authors/dateCountryN FathersN ChildrenFathers and/or childrenSelectnMethodMethodologyKshipMiller, 1979CA/USA4090Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewMixedBozett, 1980USA180FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewMixedBozett, 1981USA180FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewHeterosexual marriageRobson and Skeen, 1982USA600FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireNot reportedSkeen and Robson, 1984USA300FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireNot reportedSkeen and Robson, 1985USA600FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireNot reported (heterosexual)Bigner and Jabsen, 1989aUSA660FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnairenot reportedBigner and Jabsen, 1989bUSA660FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnairenot reportedBigner and Jabsen, 1992USA530FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnairenot reportedCrosbie-Burt and Helmbrecht, 1993USA9648Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposive + clil referralsQuantativeQutnnaireHeterosexual marriageBailey et al., 1995USA5543Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireNot reported (heterosexual)Peterson et al., 2000USA30FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewNot reported (planned)Barrett and Tasker, 2001UK101179Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireMixedSilverste et al., 2002USA210FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeFoc groupPlannedBenson et al., 2005USA250FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeFoc groupHeterosexual marriageCurrent-Juretschko and Bigner, 2005USA50FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewStep parentgSchacher et al., 2005USA210FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeFoc groupHeterosexual marriageStacey, 2006USA240FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewMixedBerkowz, 2008USA390FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewPlannedBerkowz and Marsigl, 2007USA390FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewPlannedBramen and Mchell, 2008USA100FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewNot reported (planned)Giano, 2008USA160FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewAdoptnRiggs, 2008AUS210FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewDonor InsematnRipper, 2008AUS400FathersNatnal data fileMixed-methodsMedia analysisDonor InsematnSirota, 2009USA0136ChildrenConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnaireHeterosexual marriageDowng et al., 2009USA640FathersAdoptn agenciQualativeInterviewAdoptnBos, 2010NL720FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnairePlannedTasker et al., 2010USA036ChildrenConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewNot reportedTuazon-McCheyne, 2010UK130FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeFoc groupSurrogacyPatterson and Tornello, 2010AUS1020FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnaireMixedBergman et al., 2010USA400FathersSurrogacy agenciQualativeInterviewSurrogacyWells, 2011USA200FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewAdoptnBerkowz, 2011aUSA*120Fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewAdoptnBerkowz, 2011bUSA*220fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewMixedArmto and Shapiro, 2011USA100FathersAdoptn agenci + support groupQualativeInterviewAdoptnTornello et al., 2011USA2300FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnaireAdoptnPower et al., 2012AUS / NZ880FathersConvenience/purposiveMixed-methodsQutnnaireMixedRichardson et al., 2012USA700FathersAdoptn agenci + nvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewAdoptnGoldberg et al., 2012aUSA700FathersAdoptn agenci + nvenience purposiveQualativeInterviewAdoptnGiler, 2012USA120FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewMixedTornello and Patterson, 2012USA1670FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnaireHeterosexual marriageDempsey, 2012aAUS60FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewDonor InsematnDempsey, 2012bAUS40FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewDonor InsematnLick et al., 2012USA086ChildrenConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedShenkman, 2012IL1830Fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QuantativeQutnnairMixedJenks, 2013USA180FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewHeterosexual marriageDempsey, 2013AUS120FathersConvenience/purposive (gay muny)QualativeInterviewDonor InsematnJulien, 2013CA770FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnaireHeterosexual marriageMurphy, 2013AUS / EUA300FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewSurrogacyBucher, 2014USA5050Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposiveMixedInterviewHeterosexual marriageErera and Segal-Engelch, 2014IL90FathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewCo-parentg wh hetero womenShenkman and Shmotk, 2014IL2040Fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedPanozzo, 2015USA1520FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixed (planned)Tornello and Patterson, 2015USA7390FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedTornello et al., 2015aUSA1040FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairSurrogacyTornello et al., 2015bUSA5110FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedVjamuri, 2015USA380Fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewAdoptnBlake et al., 2016UK8040Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposive and surrogacy agenciQualativeInterviewSurrogacyErez and Shenkman, 2016IL1800FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedPetersen, 2016DK150Fathers and non-fathersConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewSurrogacyPerr et al., 2016USA6191Fathers and childrenConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixedShenkman and Shmotk, 2016IL1640FathersConvenience/purposiveQuantativeQutnnairMixed (planned)Vjamuri, 2016USA380FatherConvenience/purposiveQualativeInterviewAdoptnOf the total number of studi, 35 (56%) were qualative (cludg terviews and foc groups), 25 (40%) were quantative, and only three studi employed mixed-methods. Neverthels, when pared to heterosexual fathers, no signifint differenc were found regardg gay fathers their volvement their children's activi, level of timacy wh their children, parentg problem solvg, time spent wh their children, enuragement of children's tonomy, manner which problems of childrearg were handled, emotnal volvement wh their children, and level of parental planned gay-father fai wh adopted children, parentg strs among gay fathers was wh the normal range, well below clil strs levels (Tornello et al., 2011). However, no differenc were found between the gay and heterosexual father groups relatn to parental burn, parental ncern, or levels of emotnal volvement wh their life and relatnship qualyIn a study wh gay fathers and stepfathers, the ma factor for fay satisfactn was the cln of the stepfather to the father-child relatnship, which was more important to fay life than was fancial fort, fay hn, or qualy of the relatnship wh an ex-spoe (Crosbie-Burt and Helmbrecht, 1993).

GROWG UP WH GAY PARENTS: WHAT IS THE BIG AL?*

Another study revealed that gay fathers reported higher life satisfactn but gave ls importance to their reer sce beg a parent (Panozzo, 2015) and father inti and genr-role orientatnIn terms of genr and father inty and genr-role orientatn, an early study wh gay men who beme fathers wh heterosexual relatnships reported no signifint teractn between fatherhood stat and fathers' endorsement of androgyno genr rol (Robson and Skeen, 1982). Some fathers terviewed nsired they had removed their parental role om their sense of genred embodiment, while others thought they embodied both rol as mothers and fathers, extendg the boundari of what was accepted as fay beyond blogil nnectns (Berkowz, 2011b) ntrast, some gay fathers clearly still aspired to parenthood lked to the tradnal “mother-nurturer, father-provir” fay iology (Berkowz, 2011b; Panozzo, 2015).

ARE THE FATHERS ALRIGHT? A SYSTEMATIC AND CRIL REVIEW OF STUDI ON GAY AND BISEXUAL FATHERHOOD

In this regard, a study of US gay fathers reported that ntrast wh those livg California, most of the gay fathers who lived Tennsee reported higher levels of parenthood-related stigma and tend to avoid suatns which they might enunter this stigma (Perr et al., 2016) 's psychosocial adjtmentIn terms of the gay father's own childhood and upbrgg, two studi dited that the vast majory of gay fathers themselv had experienced an enjoyable childhood and adolcence (Skeen and Robson 1984, 1985).

's study (2012), which the majory of gay fathers felt closely attached to their fay-of-orig durg adulthood, and reported regular ntact wh their two recent studi, gay fathers prented higher levels of subjective well-beg (posive emotns, judgments of life satisfactn and happs) and a stronger sense of personal growth and purpose pared to both childls gay men and heterosexual fathers (Shenkman and Shmotk, 2014, 2016; Erez and Shenkman, 2016). However, Barrett and Tasker (2001) poted out three areas of ncern that gay fathers reported havg about their children's feelgs and experienc, namely tensn keepg a secret, beg teased or bullied by other children, and feelg study found that women wh gay or bisexual fathers felt signifintly ls fortable wh nearns and timacy, ls able to tst others or pend on them to be available when need, and also more anx about their own timate relatnships than were women wh heterosexual fathers (Sirota, 2009). Authors have prevly suggted that planng to have children together, gay upl may share parentg duti more equally than heterosexual upl, and the evince on gay fathers parentg together also has dited this (Bibarz and Stacey, 2010; Tornello et al., 2015a, b) terms of motivatns for havg children, gay fathers have reported siar motivatns to heterosexual fathers, and a strong seemgly nate sire to bee parents.

In fact, has been shown that not only societal genred expectatns and discrimatn affects gay men's well-beg and parenthood aspiratns, but also ternalized stigma has been associated wh lower parentg sire among gay and bisexual men (Bac et al., 2014; Bermeister, 2014) and bisexual fathers have suffered discrimatn not only om society general but also om other gay men (Patterson and Tornello, 2010). Rearch on gay and bisexual fathers has given a particularly valuable opportuny to nsir fatherhood per se absence of ntributnsPAC, FAC, and IL: nceptn of the work; PAC and FAC: acquisn of data; PAC and FAC: data analysis; PAC, FAC, FS-Q, and FT: terpretatn of data; PAC, FAC, FT, FS-Q, and IL: draftg the mancript; fal approval of the versn to be published; agreement to be acuntable for all aspects of the work. The search strategy that was ed our review aimed to lote the relevant studi, therefore we nducted search numero databas through October 2021, cludg PsycNET, Proqut, Ebs, Soclogil Abstracts, and Google Scholar, g several batns of keywords: “LGBTQ parents, ” “same-sex, ” “same-genr, ” “gay, ” “lbian, ” “queer, ” and “bisexual” together wh “fai, ” “parents, ” “fathers, ” “mothers, ” “parentg, ” “parenthood, ” “Israel, ” and “aspiratns, ” both English and Hebrew.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF GAY, LBIAN, AND BISEXUAL REARCH SAMPL COUPLE AND FAY THERAPY JOURNALS

The thors suggt that this gap may be attributed to the Israeli ntext, wh the rults ditg tensn between the ternalizatn of domant faist and pronatalist valu on the one hand, which may expla the strong parenthood sir, and awarens of the multiple hurdl to gay parenthood Israel on the other, which may acunt for the low likelihood timatns [21, 38] studi explored the difference parenthood aspiratns between LGB and heterosexual childls dividuals.