In 1972, Mike published Maternal Deprivation Reassessed. It was a slim volume, written in dry academic style, but it was a tour de force. In the book, he scrutinised John Bowlby’s attachment theory, especially the impact on children of separation from their mothers, with his characteristic precision, and he concluded that some aspects of the theory, such as the claim that only mothers could be attachment figures for young children, did not stand up. His interest in the topic may well have been grounded in his own separation from his parents when he was evacuated from England to the United States at the beginning of the second world war. What was remarkable about Mike’s book was his incisiveness in analysing the evidence for and against Bowlby’s views. This was emblematic of all of Mike’s work; a forensic examination of the empirical evidence was at the root of everything he did. Bowlby, of course, remained the leading figure in the field of attachment, but he did come to the same conclusions as Mike on some specific issues. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, and the slightly later Helping Troubled Children, were the books that inspired me as a young undergraduate to become a developmental psychologist. Not only did they present the study of children’s development as a worthwhile pursuit, but they also provided insight into how greater understanding of children’s difficulties could lead to better solutions for their psychological problems. For many budding psychologists back then, these books felt like a call to arms.

I first met Mike in the autumn of 1976. Recently enrolled on a Master’s course in child development at the Institute of Education in London, I had just begun a study of children in lesbian mother families. It is hard to describe just how much animosity there was against lesbian mothers in these days. Divorced heterosexual mothers were subject to considerable prejudice and discrimination; lesbian mothers were beyond the pale. It was in this social climate that Mike was called to act as an expert witness in child custody cases involving lesbian mothers. With his ever-present eye on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of it, Mike argued that there was no good scientific reason to deny lesbian women custody of their children on the grounds of their sexual orientation. He also believed that there was a need for sound empirical data on what actually happened to children with lesbian mothers, so when he heard about my fledgling study of children in lesbian mother families, I was summoned to meet him. There began a body of research that changed the way in which lesbian mothers were treated and perceived. Most child psychiatrists in these days wouldn’t have touched this controversial topic with a barge pole. For Mike, the issue was an empirical one. He did all he could to support research on whether the outcomes for children with lesbian mothers were, as he put it, ‘good, bad, or indifferent’, and to ensure that this research was carried out to the highest possible standards. Mike was an iconoclast through and through.

I can’t pretend it was always easy working with Mike. He was an exacting supervisor, and we had disagreements based on generational differences, such as whether the word gay should, or should not, have inverted commas. Mike supported the former. This was one of the few arguments that I won! But I learned more from him than anyone else I have ever met in academic life. He was extremely generous with his time, sending 10-page memos that will be familiar to those who have ever worked with him. Their arrival used to incur in me a sense of dread, but I also knew that the contents would make the research very much better. The last of such memos was waiting for me when I returned to my office following the third Covid lockdown; it was a handwritten note with his thoughts on my most recent book.

I came to realise that Mike relished a good argument. When I learned to stand up for myself, there would be a twinkle in his eye, and our conversations became much more fun. Mike’s interest in lesbian mothers is a little-known part of his vast array of accomplishments, but this work would not have been taken nearly so seriously without his weight behind it. Mike has always been committed to social justice and to the proper use of research, not only in improving people’s lives, but also in changing social attitudes. He was a man before his time in supporting lesbian mothers in courts of law in the mid-1970s. More than 40 years later, in 2019, we were both tickled to see that our early, and somewhat obscure, article on children in lesbian mother families was included among the selection of his papers republished to celebrate the 60^th anniversary edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Others are better qualified than I am to honour Mike’s intellectual accomplishments and unparalleled contribution to research in the fields of child development, child psychiatry, and developmental psychopathology, for which he has been awarded many honours. His work on the aetiology of child psychiatric disorder, the intergenerational transmission of psychiatric disorder, autism, risk and resilience in childhood, social influences on child adjustment, and the interplay between genes and the environment – to name just some of areas that he influenced – was transformative, and it had a pivotal influence on policy and practice worldwide. He had a capacity to identify the most important questions, and to be unrelenting in his search for the answers. For Mike, identifying the mechanisms was always key.

At a time when mental health problems in childhood and adolescence are on the rise, Mike’s work is more important than ever. His contribution has been profound, not least for its rigour and integrity, and will continue inform solutions to children’s problems for decades to come.

The post Obituary: Professor Sir Michael (Mike) Rutter appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Many want schools to challenge prejudice against new family forms and want parents to provide more information about donors, half-siblings, and surrogates, according to a new book, We Are Family.

People concerned about children growing up in new forms of families (e.g., LBGTQ families, families created by donor eggs) have worried unnecessarily. In the face of dire warnings about such families, studies consistently show that their children turn out just as well as – and sometimes better than – kids from traditional families with two heterosexual parents. Findings have been remarkably similar, whether studies have focused on families with lesbian mothers, gay fathers, transgender parents, or single mothers by choice. Findings on families created by donations of eggs, sperm, or embryos, as well as by surrogacy, reflect the same pattern.

In studies of all these new forms of family, we, along with other research teams, have found that the quality of family relationships matters for children’s welfare far more than the number, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or biological relatedness of the parents.

It has taken nearly 50 years of studies, many following children across decades, to establish the empirical evidence. And there has been plenty of heartache along the way, starting with lesbian mothers who lost custody of their children back in the 1970s. In the half century since then, public and expert fears about new forms of family have underpinned various legal barriers to parenthood, discriminatory practices, and widespread stigmatization.

“My brother and I knew people in our school that had gay and lesbian parents and that did get bullied quite a lot, and that scared us from telling people.”

More new forms of family coming

However, even though research on children’s outcomes is clear, the story does not end there, for two reasons. First, the diversity of new family forms seems likely only to expand as science advances and people seek new paths to parenthood. Artificial wombs, eggs, and sperm are just over the horizon. At the University of Cambridge Centre for Family Research, we are already examining children’s outcomes in co-parenting families in which couples are not romantically involved, children are parented by single fathers by choice, and transgender people give birth after they have transitioned.

These developments pose fresh challenges to what has long been seen as the norm for children to flourish. Let’s hope people avoid repeating over-hasty judgments. We should await the evidence and be calmed by encouraging outcomes from other new forms of family.

Children are asking for change

Second, and perhaps more important, there is much more to say about children in these new forms of family, beyond simply logging their long-term outcomes. What is it like for them to grow up in such families? We should listen to their voices, and hear their thoughts and feelings. To that end, our team has conducted many studies gathering children’s stories.

Through our work, we have found that schools, parents, and the wider society still have much to learn about supporting children in non-traditional families through their experiences, which can be upsetting. The distress is not related to the type of family children have, but because of stigmatization, inadequate communication, and lack of understanding, mainly from those on the periphery of home.

So, for example, many children with LGBTQ parents have been stigmatized in school, by society, and sometimes by wider family. When we interviewed children of lesbian mothers born in the mid-1960s when they were young adults, almost half reported being teased or bullied as teenagers.

Stigmatization burdens children

“I wasn’t allowed to go to my friend’s house anymore,” said Anna. “Her mum and dad forbade me from going anywhere near, and that hurt me because she had been my best friend for a long, long time. I lost that friend. And then, of course, there was a chain reaction. Everybody found out. They said, ‘Don’t go near her, she’ll turn out like her mum.’”

John was bullied when schoolmates found out about his lesbian mom. “School was one big nightmare really, because I got picked on so much,” he explained. “I had cigarettes stubbed out on the back of my neck, and high-heeled shoes thrown at me, and a bit of hair cut off, and my head chucked down the loo, and that sort of thing.”

Children have felt the need to clam up about their families because of widespread prejudice. Stacey explained: “My brother and I knew some people in our school that had gay and lesbian parents and that did get bullied quite a lot, and that scared us from telling people. So, we never told anyone. It was hard keeping secrets.”

“Schools, parents, and wider society still have a lot to learn about supporting children through their experiences.”

Effective school challenges to prejudice

Schools must create a positive, supportive environment for such children. It pays off. Carol, 14, highlighted helpful action by her school: “Basically, they spread the word how it’s not very good to say, ‘Oh this is so gay’ or ‘that’s so gay,’ even though it’s used as a different meaning. They tell them that’s wrong and why you shouldn’t say that.” Mike, 17, recalled how a new English teacher, who was gay, made a difference: “He has one of the Stonewall ‘Some People Are Gay, Get Over It’ posters in his classroom. Just seeing the poster in his room is really cool.” As part of our research project, the UK campaign for equality of LGBTQ people, Stonewall, published 10 recommendations from children on how schools can support them and their same-sex parents.

Children of transgender parents have been bullied and teased in similar ways, and inclusive attitudes by schools can help them. Wendy explained: “I put my hand up and said, ‘I don’t have a dad because my dad’s transgender,’ and I got an award for it ‘cos it was actually really brave of me to say.”

Tell children what’s happening

Parents also should consider being more open about what is happening in their families. “It would have helped if he had explained things a bit better,” said Henry, 18, reflecting on when his father transitioned to being a woman. “It wasn’t so much him wearing dresses, but more him being a bit manic and doing strange things.” Chris, 18, advised other children in a similar situation: “Try to get them to communicate with you as much as possible because it’s worse if things are happening and you don’t know why.”

Children tend to accept, in a matter of fact way, their father’s or mother’s change of gender if it happened while they were little or a long time ago. “Chloe’s always been Chloe,” said Susanna, 14, who was a toddler when her father transitioned. “I don’t remember when it actually happened, so it’s basically been for as long as I remember.”

Experiencing transition can worry them

 But some children find it difficult when they experience a parent’s transition. They can have fears of loss, which typically pass, but which can be very real during gender transition. Jade, who was six when her father transitioned, was upset about losing her dad: “When she transitioned, I felt like there was a hole in my heart because I missed my dad and every time somebody talked about their dad, I got really upset.” But she grew more accepting. At age nine, Jade reflected: “When she transitioned, it made her a lot happier ‘cos, when she was a boy, she was really unhappy. Ever since she’s transitioned, she’s come home from work, hugged us, and been really happy. It’s changed a lot since she transitioned.”

Another upset can be rejection of parents by their wider family, so children lose contact with some relatives. Theresa, whose father transitioned when she was six, explained: “People on my mum’s side of the family really struggle with it. Her parents and brothers, and basically everyone over there, cut us off. It made me sad and kind of angry because it’s really no reason to be horrible.”

“When children found out later, as teenagers or adults, they felt more negatively about how they were conceived and their relationship with their parents.”

Children should not have to explain their families

Children may also feel responsible for explaining to the outside world issues such as gender transition. “My problem,” explained Susanna, “has been having to explain to other people constantly because no one really understands.” Josh reported: “Sometimes, random people ask me questions and I have to explain to them. That gets tiring for me.”

Our research has highlighted issues for children born through assisted reproductive technologies, such as egg, sperm, and embryo donation, or surrogacy. Some children as young as two or three years might ask of a single mother by choice: “Do I have a daddy? Where is he?” Some – but by no means all – especially as they get into their teens, are eager to fill a gap in knowledge about themselves by finding out more about their donor, surrogate, and any half-siblings born to the same donor or surrogate.

“It’s important to me now . . . I’m always thinking about what she looks like,” explained Sarah, 14, who was born through egg donation. Alex, 14, conceived by sperm donation, said: “I would like to know who he is . . . quite a lot . . . Recently a lot more than I used to.”

Tell children early about their origins

We have found that it is generally better to start talking to children early about how they were conceived and born. Children who find out later, as teenagers or adults, tend to feel more negatively about how they were conceived and in their relationships with their parents than children who have had the conversation about their beginnings early. Many parents hold off telling their children, fearing that the children will love them less. However, these fears are unfounded because children who are told early tend to be very accepting, often not particularly interested, and unshocked by learning more as they grow older.

The risks of not disclosing this information to children have grown with the advent of ancestry sites offering DNA tests, which can suddenly lead unsuspecting children to discover half-siblings and relatives of whom they had no inkling. Children may find their identities destabilized, and learning about their beginnings in this way can undermine their trust in their parents.

The story of new forms of family is largely good news, of children flourishing, much as we might expect them to do in traditional families, and sometimes doing even better. The composition of their family does not upset them. It is other factors, such as people’s reactions to their family or the lack of information about their origins, that cause them distress. The solutions lie in better understanding, greater societal acceptance of diverse families, swift challenges to prejudice, and openness within families about where their much-wanted children came from.

The post Children flourish in new forms of family, but some still suffer outsiders’ stigmatization appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

This research on gay fathers contradicts beliefs that fathers have less innate caring ability than mothers and challenges the historical emphasis on mothers.

Researchers at Cambridge University in the UK have found that 10- to 14-year-old adopted children of gay fathers showed higher levels of “secure autonomous attachment” than did adopted children of heterosexual parents. Children who score highly on secure autonomous attachment are able to cope on their own at times, and have positive coping mechanisms, when upset, such as turning to others for support.

Secondly, adopted children of gay fathers also showed lower levels of “insecure preoccupied attachment” than children adopted by either lesbian or heterosexual couples. Children who score highly on insecure preoccupied attachment are typically over-dependent on parents for support and show high levels of anger towards them.

Finally, children of gay fathers showed lower levels of “disorientated-disorganised attachment” – contradictory or incompatible coping strategies – than children of heterosexual couples.

But before rushing to the conclusion that gay fathers are innately better parents, as opposed to equally good parents, the researchers point out other possible explanations.

For example, gay fathers, who are still leading a social change and forging a new way in the world, are on average more motivated and well-adjusted than heterosexual parents. Indeed, in this research, gay fathers rated lower in depression and parenting stress than heterosexual adoptive parents.

Or perhaps the adoption screening process for adoption by gay men is more stringent, meaning gay fathers have to demonstrate stronger motivation and competence than do other adoptive parents. Alternatively, adoption agencies might be placing children with fewer behaviour problems with gay fathers, though there is little evidence of this. Indeed, on average, gay fathers in the sample adopted older children, and older children are more likely to show behaviour problems.

Another possibility difference between gay fathers and heterosexual parents is that they are unlikely to have been through the distressing process of attempting and failing fertility treatment. This traumatic experience can harm parental wellbeing.

Beliefs about mothers’ innate caring abilities, and the historical emphasis on mothers as “primary” attachment figures, might raise questions about attachment patterns in families with two gay fathers. However, the evidence from this research contradicts such ideas.

This is good news for the adoption system. The researchers conclude, “Given the number of children waiting to be adopted and the scarcity of suitable adoptive parents, it is important that potential adopters are not discriminated against based on their gender or sexual orientation.”

The study took place in two phases, once when the children were four to eight years old and again six years later, when the children were 10 to 14 years old. In the second phase, the children were interviewed using the “Friends and Family Interview”. The interviewers focused on how the children discussed the relationship with their parents, assessing this against various measures of secure and insecure attachment. On three out of four measures, secure autonomous attachment, insecure preoccupied attachment, and disorientated-disorganised attachment, they found statistical differences between adopted children of gay fathers, lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents. There were no differences on the final measure of attachment, “insecure dismissing”, when children portray themselves as strong, and minimize negative experiences and their need for support from others.

Earlier research has established that children do equally well when raised by lesbian mothers as they do when raised by heterosexual parents. In later research, this finding was found to apply to gay fathers, who were more responsive and warm towards their children and spent more time with them, on average, than fathers in heterosexual couples.

The post Children adopted by gay fathers more likely to show strong attachment than children of heterosexual couples appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Gender nonconforming youth are more likely to experience rejection and verbal, physical and sexual abuse from both parents and peers.

Gender nonconforming children, particularly boys, experience victimization. They are more likely to be rejected and verbally abused by their parents, and they suffer higher levels of both depression and PTSD. Men who identify as both gay and “effeminate” report more sexual abuse in childhood. This may be related to the general low value given to “feminine” behaviors and characteristics. Possibly as a result, boys are less likely to be gender nonconforming than girls. 

Gender identity and child development

Children learn gender labels when very young, at 18 to 21 months, shaped by parental behavior and expectations. For example, parents give girl and boy toddlers different toys, and they often expect boys to be better at crawling than girls. At two years, children can already feel atypical if they are not like others of their own gender.

Researchers at Yale and Harvard universities in the USA reviewed how victimization of gender nonconforming children influences their development. They present a “social cognitive” approach which proposes that gender identity develops through direct influences, such as verbal messages about how boys and girls should behave, and indirect influences, such as parents modelling gender specific behavior. A child is an interactive agent in this process of development. The process is influenced by culture: for example, non-Western or more religious men are likely to be less accepting of gender nonconforming individuals.

Two types of socialisation have been studied: in the home and among peers.  

Gender socialisation at home

At home, gender socialisation takes place through things like clothing, how parents praise their boys and girls and how parents use gender specific pronouns. Experimental studies have shown that adults interacting with infants introduced as a girl were more likely to give ‘feminine’ toys to the child, such as dolls and domestic items. If the infant is introduced as a boy, however, they are more likely to introduce ‘masculine’ toys, such as tools and cars, and they encourage more physical activity. Parents support things like exploration, rough-and-tumble play and dressing up differently in boys and girls, despite a lack of evidence that boys and girls are different in any domain typically associated with gender, such as crawling ability. 

Parents tend to associate gender nonconformity in children with homosexuality and often discourage gender nonconforming behavior. Discouragement of nonconformity in children as young as four years includes telling them to change their behavior, punishing or restricting their nonconforming activities and sending them to counseling. Such children are also at greater risk of physical, psychological and sexual abuse in the home, and of PTSD later in life.

These problems affect sexual and gender minority youth in particular—individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or another orientation that is not heterosexual, as well as those who identify as transgender, agender, gender fluid, or another category that is not cisgender. Transgender youth are particularly exposed to negativity from their parents. 

Gender socialisation among peers

When young children play among peers, their play becomes more gendered. For example, girls are less likely to play with toy cars when they are not alone. Preschool and middle-school children are more likely to befriend same-sex children with similar levels of gender-typed behaviors. Peer popularity of children is strongly related to gender conformity across childhood: there are strong social rewards for conforming. 

The process of gender socialisation is visible in trends across childhood. Over time, children’s attitudes about the other gender become more similar to their friends’ attitudes. Children’s identification with their own gender grows; at the same time, peer harassment and victimization of nonconforming children increase. As a result, gender nonconforming behavior falls over the school years.

This process is linked to children’s cognitive development: they are increasingly able to make social comparisons between boys and girls, to develop a sense of self around gender and to imagine what others are thinking about them.  

Gender nonconforming youth are more likely to experience rejection and verbal, physical and sexual abuse from peers. They are more likely to experience low self-worth, but only when they do not feel accepted by their peers. If they do feel accepted, no increased risk of low self-worth is present.

Child development risks from negative responses to gender nonconforming children 

Gender nonconforming children are more likely to suffer depression and to have suicidal thoughts. They are also at greater risk of bullying others and becomingaggressive.  The authors of the review describe the process according to “minority stress theory”, which encompasses both actual discrimination and the internalized response to it on the part of the victim. Such responses may include internalized homophobia, chronic vigilance about rejection and concealment of sexual orientation. 

What can be done?

Family acceptance of gender nonconforming children is important. For example, a father’s acceptance of nonconforming behavior in his son protects the child from psychological distress. (No such link occurs between fathers and daughters.)

The researchers make recommendations to parents about how to support sexual and gender minority children – talking about gender nonconformity, respecting it, ensuring other family and community members do the same, finding adult role models, and welcoming the child’s friends. 

Action in schools to support gender nonconforming children is particularly important given the long span of strong peer influence on child development. Again, the researchers direct their recommendations to the particular case of sexual and gender minority children. They recommend that schools explicitly address sexual orientation and gender and negative reactions to gender nonconformity. Teachers need training, and gender nonconforming students need support groups. The topic should be on the school curriculum, they write, and sexual orientation should be an explicit part of anti-bullying strategies.

The post Gender nonconforming children are at greater risk of victimization, particularly boys appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Less parental leave for same-sex male parents excludes them from benefits that support child development.

A study of parental leave entitlements has found that in the great majority of OECD countries, same-sex male parents are entitled to substantially less paid leave than different-sex parents and same-sex female parents. The study looked at the 33 OECD countries that offer paid parental leave. (The remaining OECD country, the United States, does not.)

The authors of the research suggest that the reasons behind their finding include a greater attribution of the caring role to women, and they recommend removing gendered and heteronormative language from parental leave regulations.

Only in four out of the 33 countries do all couples get the same paid parental leave: Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia. At the other extreme, in three countries—Israel, Switzerland and Turkey—same-sex male parents get nothing at all. In these three countries, same-sex female parents and different-sex parents get 14-17 weeks of paid parental leave. In 16 countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and the UK), same-sex female parents get the same amount of leave as different-sex parents, but same-sex male parents don’t. On average, same-sex male parents get 22 fewer weeks of paid parental leave than different-six parents, ranging from two weeks less in the UK to over a year less in Hungary, Japan and South Korea.

Discrepancies in paid parental leave exist also between same-sex female parents and different-sex parents, but to a lesser extent. Same-sex female parents get the same paid parental leave as different-sex parents in 19 countries, though in two of these (Slovakia and Austria) that can only happen if one mother takes 100% of the parental leave and the other none, because no sharing with a second mother is allowed. In one country, Switzerland, the difference is absent because no partner of any gender gets any parental leave. In 14 countries, leave designed specifically for fathers is not available to same-sex female parents.

There are also differences in parental leave entitlements for adoptive parents of different gender orientations. Nine countries do not allow same-sex parent adoption at all (Chile, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey), and two countries do not provide leave for adoption (Greece and Switzerland). Most of the rest, 20 in total, provide the same parental leave benefit for all adoptive couples, irrespective of gender combination. In two countries (Mexico and Portugal), different-sex adoptive parents get more parental leave than same-sex female parents, who, in turn, get considerably more than same-sex male parents.

The authors highlight three factors that drive these discriminatory parental leave entitlements.

The first is the greater attribution of caring to women then to men, which disadvantages same-sex male parents. Whilst some difference in parental leave entitlements between mothers and fathers is biologically based – the need for recovery from the birth and for the establishment of breastfeeding – the disparities are often more substantial than biology alone would justify. And any parental leave reserved for biological mothers means that same-sex male parents get less time to care for their babies. This can be substantially less: in seven countries, this difference in availability of parental leave is six months long or greater (Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea).

The second factor works the other way: parental leave entitlements specifically designed to facilitate fathers taking leave in different-sex relationships are not always equally accessible for same-sex female couples

A third factor in discrimination is the wider inequality in marriage and adoption rights for same-sex parents.

The study authors recommend removing from parental leave legislation gendered and heteronormative language that designates women as primary caregivers and assumes that every family has one mother and one father.

The researchers refer to the Yogyakarta Principles, which outline human rights for LBGT people. Principle 24 relates to family benefits and states that “no family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members, including with regard to family-related social welfare and other public benefits.”

Since shared parental leave-taking has been found to be linked to a higher rate of breastfeeding, improved child development, improved parent mental health and better protection from wage or job loss, the inequalities in the legislation expose same-sex parents more to risks than different-sex parents face.

The post Same-sex male parents get on average 22 fewer weeks of paid parental leave than heterosexual couples in 29 OECD countries appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

But when the distress of the bisexual parents was controlled for, there was no residual difference between the children of these and other parents, both lesbian/gay and heterosexual.

A study has found that bisexual parents experience substantially greater stress than lesbian/gay and heterosexual parents, and that children in these families display more emotional and mental health difficulties. Indeed, 20% of bisexual parents in a sample of over 1,000 exceeded the threshold score for a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. When the distress of these bisexual parents was controlled for, however, there was no residual difference between the children of these and other parents, whether lesbian/gay or heterosexual. This suggests that it is not the sexual orientation of bisexual parents per se that predicts more child difficulties, but rather the increased stigma these parents face, which could be mitigated by more support and acceptance.

Earlier research also finds that bisexual parents experience greater difficulties, possibly because of the discrimination that bisexual people face. They also receive less partner support: they are more likely to be single parents – 61% in this study, compared to 47% of lesbian/gay parents and 29% of heterosexual parents.

The study also showed no differences on average in difficulties experienced by children of lesbian/gay parents and heterosexual parents. Based on the fact that the sexual orientation of parents per se does not predict greater difficulty experienced by children, the researchers conclude, “Our results provide further reassurance that …. concerns about children being raised in same-gender partnered households appear unwarranted.”

The researchers analysed data collected in 2013-15 in a ‘National Health Interview Study’, involving 21,103 parents of 4- to 17-year-olds in the USA. In this sample, 0.7% of children were living with at least one gay/lesbian parent and 0.6% with at least one bisexual parent. The sample revealed some diversity not detected in studies that specifically select families for study. For example, 11% of children with one lesbian/gay parent lived in a household where parents were of different genders.

Each parent in this study was asked about sexual orientation, about their experience of psychological distress and about the well-being of their child, using a ‘Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’. The questionnaire asked about the child’s behavior, anxiety, unhappiness, peer friendships and concentration. (The researchers admit that measuring the child’s experience via asking the parent is not wholly reliable. This method also misses whether the child is aware of the parent’s sexuality, which may make a difference to the child.)

The results back up earlier research that finds no differences on average between children raised in LGB-headed families and heterosexual families in terms of psychosocial adjustment, peer relations, romantic relationships, sexual behavior, school outcomes, substance abuse, delinquency and experience of victimization. Indeed, young adults from lesbian-headed families have been found to report better mental health on average than their peers in heterosexual families.

The research does not say that the experience of children by LGB, heterosexual and bisexual parents is the same, however. Other research shows these children are likely to be exposed to more stigma than children of heterosexual parents, but also that the nontraditional family structure can be a source of strength, pride and positive coping strategies. But this study adds to the evidence that the sexual orientation of parents per se is not significant for child development outcomes.

In the USA about 6 million children have an LGB parent, and 220,000 children under 18 in are being raised by same-gender parents. More than a third of Americans, however, do not believe that LGB individuals should have the right to adopt a child.

The post Bisexual parents experience greater stress, which impacts their children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

The researchers found that a more important influence on the adopted child than having same-sex parents or heterosexual parents is how the family manages conflicts.

A study has found no differences in family functioning between same-sex parents and heterosexual parents of adopted children. Nor did it find any difference in how family functioning influences adopted children’s behaviour and how the children think about the adoption. The researchers conclude that there is no empirical argument against same-sex parents adopting children. In the USA, same-sex parents are seven times more likely to adopt children than are heterosexual parents.

The researchers found that a more important influence on adopted children is how the family manages conflicts, whatever the parents’ sexual orientation.

The researchers filmed and coded a 10-minute full family discussion (including other siblings, if any) about a recent conflict with the child. Across both same-sex and heterosexual parents, they found that better “cohesiveness” – the way the family works together to resolve a conflict – correlated with the parents’ report of better behavior on the part of the child. This corroborates much other family research showing that children do better when there is less conflict in the family. Some of these other studies have also observed whole families interacting when measuring conflict management, though few have included adoptive parents.

Similarly, the researchers found correlations between better family functioning – more cohesiveness (as above), less negativity in family interactions and more positivity – and more positive reports by the children regarding their feelings about the adoption. This too is in line with earlier research showing that children feel better about their adoption when their families are more responsive and supportive.

The children’s age and gender and whether the adoptive parents were separated made no difference in the findings, on average.

The study involved 96 families of adopted children (48 boys and 48 girls) aged between 5 and 12 years old. Twenty-six sets of parents were mother-mother, 29 father-father, and 41 mother-father. Forty-six percent of the adoptions were transracial, and the families’ average socioeconomic status was high.

Overall, families with same-sex parents scored highly for cohesiveness and positivity and moderately for negativity. The behavior of the children was below clinical problem levels, and overall the children were positive about adoption.

The family discussions were assessed for power-wielding versus power-sharing dynamics that characterise discussions about resolving conflict. Negativity and positivity in interactions, including tone and body language, were also scored.

The children’s behaviour was assessed by asking both parents, using a questionnaire covering things like disobedience, getting into fights and cheating. The children’s thoughts about adoption were assessed by asking them to complete a questionnaire that explored their positive feelings, negative feelings and their “preoccupation with adoption” (e.g., “How often do you think about adoption?” “How often do you think about your mother?”).

The results of this study confirm earlier research that shows children adopted by same-sex parents do as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents, irrespective of the different parenting practices that are often seen in same-sex couples. These families may demonstrate unique strengths in family communication as well as resilience in the face of social stigma.

The post Children adopted by same-sex parents do just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

This research casts light on how children are socialised into gender roles, contributing to an understanding of how boys and girls develop and how they can best be supported to thrive. It also adds to the debate about gender equality and how differences between men and women emerge from early childhood onwards.

The researchers, Abbie Goldberg and Randi Garcia at Clark University in the USA, studied 181 adoptive families, 56 lesbian, 48 gay male and 77 heterosexual. They asked parents to rate how their child plays at three points: ages 3, 4 and 6. Parents also answered 24 questions about their children’s toys and activities and how they played (e.g., avoiding getting dirty, participating in rough and tumble).

Studying adopted children removes the potential for genetics to influence the results. We know from other research that children can exhibit gender-stereotyped behaviors from the age of about 18 months, with boys and girls choosing different kinds of toys to play with. These preferences become more rigid through the age of five. Boys tend to be more rigid than girls, avoiding cross-gendered toys and activities more than girls do.

Lesbian and gay parents may create different home environments from those created by heterosexual parents – buying different toys and encouraging different behaviors. This research suggests that such differences might occur more often in lesbian two-mother families than in gay two-father families. Are lesbian mothers more likely to resist stereotypically masculine behavior in boys more than gay male parents are? Could the absence of stereotypical father behavior, such as rough and tumble play, be a factor in explaining the difference in behavior of boys raised without a father? We do know from other research that fathers in heterosexual families are more likely to be intolerant of cross-gender behavior, particularly in sons.

The post Three-year-old boys raised by lesbian mothers show less masculine behavior – but that changes as they grow older appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

How do families support healthy psychological adjustment and gender development for their children? Is family structure the crucial factor – that is, parents’ gender, number, their sexual orientation and genetic connection to the children? What role is also played by family processes – the quality of relationships in the family, such as warmth, levels of interaction, openness of communication and methods of discipline?

For a long time, people believed that family structure enjoyed over-riding importance, the gold standard being the traditional two-parent family with married heterosexual mum and dad, biologically related to their children. So “non-traditional” variants of this family structure, be they, for example, single-parent families or stepfamilies, took second place, at best.

More recent variations, known as “new family forms”, involving same-sex parents and families created by assisted reproductive technologies, have also experienced stigma. However, research on these more modern variants not only supports their value but seriously questions the once accepted primacy of the traditional family structure.

“The evidence suggests that the presence of fathers in children’s lives is not ‘per se’ essential.  More controversially, children can, it seems, do fine without a mum.”

This research on new family forms gathered over the last 35 years has shown that children in these families do just as well as children raised in traditional families. The evidence also reveals that boys are no less masculine in terms of identity and behaviour, and girls are no less feminine, when they grow up with parents of a single or the same gender.

To some, these findings will hardly be surprising. Children in these new family forms are typically very wanted children with committed and involved parents. They are not born casually. These parents have often gone to great lengths to have children, requiring complicated fertility treatment or the surmounting of considerable prejudice. Many gay fathers have said they never dreamed that the day would come when they would be parents. Some studies find more positive relationships in these family forms even than in traditional families.

I am not saying that children in new family forms always flourish. The research simply shows that they are just as likely to do well or have problems as children in traditional families, depending on factors such as the quality of parenting, the children’s own personal characteristics and, importantly, the social environment in which they are raised. That includes society’s attitudes towards the family. So prejudice and stigmatisation can harm these children – even though there is actually nothing in their families per se that puts them at risk.

What about the number of parents? Is that significant in children’s psychological development? Take single-mother families as an example. Research on the psychological adjustment of children in such families shows that children are more at risk of psychological problems than are their counterparts from homes where the father is present. This is true of single-mother families formed by divorce as well as those headed by unmarried single mothers. However, this difference is largely accounted for by factors that often accompany single parenthood, such as economic hardship, maternal depression and lack of social support, as well as factors that came before the transition to a single-parent home, such as parental conflict. When we control for these factors, differences in psychological adjustment between children with and without fathers largely disappear.

The evidence suggests, therefore, that the presence of fathers in children’s lives is not essential per se. What about mothers? Our findings lead to the controversial conclusion that the presence of a female parent is not essential for children’s well-being or their development of sex-typed behaviour. What’s the evidence? Although only a small number of studies have been conducted, the available findings show no evidence of raised levels of child adjustment problems or atypical gender development between children with two-parent gay father families and children from either two-parent lesbian or two-parent heterosexual homes. Children can, it seems, do fine without a mum.

These findings challenge widely held theories of child development. They question the importance of the traditional family in providing boys with fathers and girls with mothers on whom to model their behaviour. Most controversially, perhaps, the emerging research on father-headed families challenges the centrality of the mother.

Research on new family forms contradicts conventional wisdoms and prejudice, confirming what many parents in those families have long known – the kids are typically doing fine.

The post Children do just as well in ‘new family structures’ as in the traditional family appeared first on Child and Family Blog.