All Families Are Special: Experiences of Lesbian-Parented Families

Abstract

This study explores the lived experiences of members of lesbian-parented families incorporating a systemic perspective to include both the voices of mothers and their young children. Eight whole-family interviews were conducted with lesbian couples with at least one child in elementary school (aged 5–11). Six themes emerged from the study: intentionality in finding places to live and travel, having children, and having discussions with their children; views of themselves as advocates and being “out” in their communities; noticing how times are changing; identifying assumptions as a two-way street; perceptions of gender surrounding parenting and the salience of various identities; and the dialectical tension between wanting to be perceived as normal and wanting to acknowledge their uniqueness. Clinical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

qualitative lesbians families children gay and lesbian issues parenting

On July 26, 2015, the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage equality across the United States ( Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), ending a decadelong battle and taking a historic step in civil rights history toward further acceptance and destigmatization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) couples and families in American culture. While the amount of research on the topic has increased over the last few decades, averaging about 12 articles a year in couple and family therapy (CFT) journals between 1996 and 2009, there is still a lack of knowledge and awareness around LGBQ issues in the field (Hartwell, Serovich, Grafsky, & Kerr, 2012). As of 2016, 10 million Americans identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). This is a 1.75 million rise since 2012, with the biggest increase seen in women (Gates, 2017). Of the women who identify as either lesbian or bisexual, 48% are mothers and 18% state they would like to be in the future (Pew Research Center, 2013). It is clear, as perceptions of LGBT individuals and families change in society, these numbers will only continue to increase with lesbian-headed households becoming more common (Pew Research Center, 2011). There is now, more than ever, a pressing need for Marriage and Family Counselors (MFCs) to be knowledgeable about working with this population.

Literature Review

Forty years of research on the outcomes of families with LGBQ-identified parents indicates few, if any, differences (e.g., Ariel & McPherson, 2000; Fedewa, Black, & Ahn, 2015; Miller, Kors, & Macfie, 2017). Where there are differences, families with LGBQ-identified parents tend to be favored. LGBQ parents display more egalitarian parenting and division of household labor (Rostosky & Riggle, 2017) and are more involved in parenting than are heterosexual parents (Tasker & Patterson, 2007). Children of LGBQ parents experience lower rates of abuse (Gartrell, Rodas, Deck, Peyser, & Banks, 2005) and display greater psychological well-being and more positive family relationships than children of heterosexual parents (Bos & Gartrell, 2010; Fedewa et al., 2015).

While much research has come from the parents’ perspective, some researchers have specifically looked at children’s experiences living with parents who identify as LGBQ. For example, Farr, Crain, Oakley, Cashen, and Garber (2016) found that young adopted children of LGBQ parents were highly aware of oppression and reported feelings of “difference” from their peers, although positive perceptions of their own families appeared to outweigh these negative impressions and experiences. Similarly, other studies have found both young children and adolescents report positive experiences with having same-sex parents, while also acknowledging stigma and bullying from others (Cody, Farr, McRoy, Ayers-Lopez, & Ledesma, 2017; Gartrell et al., 2005; Welsh, 2011). Other studies have noted how children, both young and adolescent, see themselves and act as advocates (Hosking, Mulholland, & Baird, 2015).

Most research has focused either on the experiences of parents or on the experiences of their usually adolescent children. One recent study, Rickards and McLeod (2016), did combine the voices of both lesbian mothers and their children. Focused on examining how these individuals come together and authenticate themselves as a family, the researchers looked at how the family members accept the challenge to become a family, negotiate new roles, build new bonds and relationships, and then maintain their identity as a family while coping with stigma. While Rickards and McLeod (2016) took the step of looking at both children and parent perspectives, their study did not necessarily use whole-family interviews and included children as old as 45 years of age.

The current study sought to provide qualitative data on the lived experiences of members of lesbian-parented families, incorporating a systemic perspective by combining both the voices of mothers and the voices of their young children, aged 5–11, through family interviews. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the question: What are the lived experiences of families with lesbian mothers and elementary school-aged children given that they are members of an underresearched group?

Method

This was a phenomenological study informed by systemic and constructivist frameworks. The unit of study was the family rather than the individual. From this viewpoint, each family is comprised of individuals who create their own meaning of their experiences as well as coconstructing a shared meaning within each family system. The purpose of this study was to understand as deeply as possible the experiences and meaning-making of the participant families.

Participants and Procedures

Participants were recruited using nonprobabilistic criterion sampling through community organizations in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest regions of the United States. Additional participants were recruited through professional connections and snowball sampling. Families included individuals who self-identified as lesbian and were in some type of long-term partnership (i.e., marriage, civil union/domestic partnership, or lifetime partnership). All families had at least one child in elementary school between the ages of 5 and 11 who participated in the family interview. One 4-year-old and one 15-year-old also participated in the interview with their families.

Saturation was reached after a total of eight whole-family interviews. Saturation is defined as the point at which no new findings emerge from the data (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009). In total, there were 27 participants, including 16 mothers and 11 children. The age of mothers ranged from 30 to 49; the age of children who participated in the interview ranged from 4 to 15. The origins of the children ranged from adoption with a known and unknown birth mother, foster-to-adopt, unknown donorship, known donorship within the context of coparenting with a gay male couple, and being conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship. The number of children present ranged from 1 to 3. All participants identified as Caucasian, with two mothers also identifying as Latina and one child identifying as Latina/Mexican. All adult participants held at least an associate’s degree, with 11 of the 16 holding a master’s degree. Household income ranged from US$30,000 to US$220,000, with six of the eight families falling at US$100,000 or above.

Semistructured interviews were conducted with families in their homes, lasting approximately 90–120 min. All interviews were videotaped so that nonverbal behaviors could be recorded and interviews could be transcribed. The interview questions focused on how they became a family (e.g., “Tell me the story of how you became a family”), their experiences as a lesbian-parented family (e.g., “Tell me about where you feel acceptance and support or a lack thereof from your community”), and the shared meaning the family had created out of their experiences (e.g., “How have these experiences impacted your family?”).

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data followed Moustakas’s (1994) recommendations for phenomenological data analysis. The interviews were transcribed using pseudonyms chosen by the participants. All data were examined through the process of horizonalization, giving each significant statement equal weight (Merriam, 2009). The data were then organized into clusters of meaning. The researchers used the techniques of phenomenological reduction and imaginative variation to grasp the structural essence of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994).

Trustworthiness

Several methods were employed to ensure trustworthiness in the current study as defined by Merriam (2009), comprising of dependability, credibility, confirmability, and transferability. Data were triangulated through the use of multiple sources including demographic information, field notes, multiple theoretical frameworks, and transcripts of interviews. Additionally, to enhance trustworthiness, multiple researchers participated in the analysis, examining transcripts, preliminary data, and emergent themes, as well as conducting discrepant case analyses.

Results

Six major themes emerged from the data: intentionality in finding places to live and travel, having children, and having discussions with their children; views of themselves as advocates and being “out” in their communities; noticing how times are changing; identifying assumptions as a two-way street; perceptions of gender surrounding parenting and the salience of various identities; and the dialectical tension between wanting to be perceived as normal and wanting to acknowledge their uniqueness. Each is presented below with characteristic quotes from the family members interviewed.

Intentionality of Parenting Decisions

Families discussed the need to be intentional in their decision to become parents, noting that the children in their families were inherently “wanted.” Even for one family, whose son had been conceived through a previous relationship, there was an intentionality in the making of their family. Specifically, his stepmother discussed her knowledge that she was marrying not only her partner but was committing to be a parent too. In turn, the children expressed feelings of being loved and supported by their families. As one daughter (age 10) noted while hugging her mother, “I feel like I’m safe and supported.” One son (age 8) stated, “I know that my family loves me and I love my family.”

While the mothers were intentional in their efforts to create a family, they were also faced with both anticipated and actual barriers. The mothers discussed legal barriers to adoptions from various countries and difficulties finding an adoption agency willing to work with them due to their sexual orientation. Other couples noted the challenge of being treated as an infertility case at fertility clinics when seeking out donorship options.

Families discussed ways in which they were intentional about choosing where to live and the communities in which they surrounded themselves. The mothers chose schools, neighborhoods, workplace environments, places of worship, and extracurricular activities with great intention. As one mother stated, “That’s part of why we chose that school…. When I toured, there were already things on the wall about adoption, things about LGBT families. Our family was already on the wall there!” One mother and daughter dyad noted:

Mother:

I think we’re very lucky here [in this city], is what we are. If we went somewhere else it might be eye-opening…

Daughter (age 9):

I think [in another location] we’d have a lot more experiences with people not liking that we have two moms.

Even family vacations and travel destinations were chosen based on their perceived level of acceptance.

We also have to think very carefully about where we vacation, and if we’re in a place that we’re not super comfortable with, it makes a difference about how we walk down the road, and what we do, and how we act, interact with each other (Mother).

Families also described having an open communication style and intentionally wanting to make space for exploring their children’s reactions and perceptions of the world. They were open with their children about the possibilities of discrimination. As one mother explained:

That’s just how the world is made up. And we’ve also not sheltered our kids. Because…say, [our daughter] chooses to go to college in the Midwest. I want her to not be shocked that someone could be like, “That must have been creepy.” I want her to be fully prepared that there is a big chunk of the world that doesn’t think that’s okay.

Advocacy and Visibility

Many families discussed issues around advocacy, ranging from lobbying at the state capitol building to discussing different kinds of families in their children’s classrooms. Children also participated by going to rallies or speaking out when someone said something negative about their families, knowingly or unknowingly. One dyad described:

Mother:

It’s just [Daughter], she’s just, “That’s who I am,” standing on her own two feet. She’s always been that way, so I don’t think she thinks anything of it. She would fight, you would always, I mean, if today someone came and said something about us, what would you do?

Daughter (age 9):

I’d say that we’re made that way.

Most families stated that they were completely out to those in their lives. Many of the children described being open about their families. For example, when one mother asked her daughter how she talks about her family, she replied, “Oh, I tell my friends that my parents are gay.” Mothers noted that because children “outed” them anyway, it is easier to disclose up front. In addition, families described how disclosing their family structure quickly cut down on potential awkwardness created by others’ assumptions. Two parents described having been asked about their husbands when others found out they had children and emphasized the need to be proactive to avoid this situation. One mother noted, “It’s easier just to kind of get it out there.”

Both mothers and children described a range of reactions others had when learning about their family, from positive to neutral to subtly or overtly negative. Families noted that positive reactions came both from other adults and children saying, “That’s cool!” The children specifically noted times when other children connected with them over having LBGQ-parented families as well. When describing one friend’s positive reaction, one son (age 5) explained, “Because he has two dads!” Two parents did point out that at times they encountered what they perceived as overly positive reactions when they would have preferred a neutral reaction. One mother gave an example: “Unless people are like, ‘Oh! That’s so wonderful!’ Because that’s kind of awkward too.”

Although uncommon, some of the families noted experiencing some negative reactions. The children noted some negative experiences with their fellow students, including one daughter (age 8) feeling like others were making fun of her behind her back. Another child (age 5) also shared that kids made fun of him at daycare, noting afterward that he had “no idea” why they were making fun of his family. Additionally, four families reported being asked intrusive questions, specifically regarding the origins of their children, that they doubted they would have been asked if they were straight.

Times Are Changing

Participants had a sense that times are changing regarding others’ perceptions and reactions to diversity in sexual orientation. One mother noted, “Definitely the world has changed significantly. It’s way cooler to be gay than it was.” Another shared, “10 years ago…it never really occurred to us that there would be marriage.” While many of the mothers feared their children would face discrimination and bullying, many of the children reported support from classmates. One son (age 8) noted, while looking at his mother, “Well, like you said, they think that it’s cool that I have two moms.”

Additionally, while some mothers described past struggles with their families of origin regarding their sexual orientation, they felt that these relationships had improved since becoming parents. Their children seemed to have brought the grandparents closer despite past feelings of distance. At the same time, mothers generally had the consensus that while it is a different world than the one they grew up in, society is “not there yet.” While many children felt accepted by classmates at school, some of the children still reported occasional incidents of being called out or teased. One daughter (age 10) stated, “Because sometimes I know people are talking about it…. I kinda feel a bit sad because my family is different, they’re judging us.”

Acknowledgment of Biases

Families discussed both assumptions and stereotypes they had faced as well as those they held against others. One common bias they faced was the assumption that they were heterosexual, including people thinking they were sisters, assuming one partner was a nanny, or making homophobic comments around them. Some families described assumptions others made about how their children came to be, whether through adoption, donorship, or other avenues. Some mothers noted that they faced others’ stereotypes of how they should have children, or remarks others made about the donor being a father figure. One couple identified their age, gender, and sexual orientation as factors which negatively impacted their career potential, in terms of obtaining and maintaining a job and receiving equal pay.

Most families also acknowledged their own biases and assumptions made about others in the context of both political and religious affiliation, specifically, assuming that politically conservative and Christian individuals would not accept their families. Many families shared moments when their assumptions were challenged and how this was experienced as a positive moment that expanded their outlook. For example, one mother described feeling anxious to meet her wife’s uncle before they got married. Her wife had mentioned that he was a “very right-wing Tea-partier.” The mother shared, “He just reaches over to me, and politely, kind of in a whisper, says, ‘Hey, so, [our niece] is really happy, and…just make sure you take good care of our girl.’” A couple initially had assumptions about one neighbor, whom they perceived as a conservative veteran, who ended up officiating their wedding. She shared, “We know these neighbors up and down the street, and actually the guy two houses down, he married us.”

Questioning the Relevance of Gender to Parenting

Many mothers in the study struggled with two contradictory beliefs. Many expressed that children, particularly their sons, needed “male energy” in their lives in order to be well-rounded and to help with developmental tasks that mothers felt unequipped for, such as toilet training or conversations about puberty. Many of the mothers noted efforts to seek out male friends, relatives, and teachers who could act as role models.

At the same time, the mothers also expressed a belief that they could provide everything their children needed in a parent. One mother identified positive aspects of her son being raised by two women. She believes that they are teaching him to be polite and conscientious, aware and expressive of his emotions, and comfortable with his own sexuality. One mother in particular was hesitant to agree that her son benefits from male influences in his life because to her this sounded similar to opponents of marriage equality’s argument that children need both a mother and a father to be emotionally healthy. This family discussed:

Mother 1:

We went through a period where [our son (age 4)]…noticed that he was the only boy in the family. And he would say things like, “There are too many girls in here. There are too many girls in this house.”…. The argument either way is, if there’s two moms, a boy needs his father, right? That’s sort of the traditional argument. And I really hesitate to say this, but I wonder if to some extent that’s true!

Mother 2:

And maybe it’s not a father, but a father figure.

One mother specifically cited “internalized homophobia” as the root of this belief. “This underlying belief of ‘Oh, am I depriving my child of something,’ if there isn’t that [male influence].”

Both parents and children discussed the idea that mothers and fathers are different and hold different roles. Most children in the study believed that mothers are “better.” One son (age 5) stated, “[Moms] care about you. They take care of you. And…they also be nice to you but they sometimes be mean.” And another daughter (age 10) noted that, “Sometimes it’s better with two moms.” Mothers attributed statements such as this to mothers being more nurturing, and at this developmental level, that is what they saw children wanting and needing. The children’s perceptions of fathers were that they are loud, smelly, make gross jokes, and that they are stricter than mothers. As one son (age 5) stated, “Boys stink, [are smelly]!” At the same time, household roles in the participant families tended to be based on likes and dislikes rather than gender—as mothers did not feel pressured by societal gender role expectations.

Daughter (age 9):

She’s our dad, if anything! [Laughter]

Researcher:

Yeah? What do you mean?

Mother:

I think I’m the one who’s home. More the disciplinarian. And you would think I’m more the dad because I do the fishing and that type of stuff.

Daughter (age 9):

Yes.

Son (age 6):

Not really.

Mother:

You don’t think I’m more like a dad, you think I’m more like a mom?

Son (age 9):

Yeah.

It was noted that many of the mothers expressed more openness to their children’s gender expressions (e.g., their sons wearing pink) than they supposed heterosexual parents would be. The participants also differentiated between gender identity and sexual orientation. One mother noted that just because someone identifies as a minority in regard to their sexual orientation may not mean that they are open to gender diversity in their family as well. She noted, “We have a friend who is transitioning, and their parent is a lesbian, and there was a lot of pushback in that family.”

“Normality” and Uniqueness

Each mother discussed her desire to be perceived as “normal” by society. One mother asserted, “We uphold the marriage vows just like anybody else,” while another stated, “We’re kind of boring!” At the same time, families acknowledged that there is some uniqueness in being part of a family parented by two women. Children, in particular, seemed to have a wider understanding of the diversity and uniqueness of all families that was surprising and exciting to their parents. The children’s discussions of differences were centered on the idea that all families are unique and “special,” and that being special is good. As one daughter (age 9) stated, “I mean, every family’s special. Every family has something special about them. But in my opinion there’s nothing special [about having two moms].”

Many of the mothers discussed ideas around intersectionality and their families being more than just a “lesbian-parented family.” A few of the families discussed how ethnicity played a role in their daily lives, with one mother noting, “I think for our family, probably the bigger differences are being a different ethnicity than the kids.” Many mothers noted that their identity as mothers was currently much more salient than their sexual orientation. Some compared this to an earlier place in their lives where their sexual orientation was more primary. As they grew in their identity as mothers, many felt less connected to the gay community. One mother recognized this as a developmental movement as she transitioned to seeing her primary identity as a mother and wife.

If you were to ask me now how I identify, I would say, “First I’m a mother.” That’s the first thing that comes to mind! Because you’ve got kids. And then I’d say I’m a wife. Gay really isn’t in there as much.

Another family noted having contemplated the implications of their sexual orientation for their daughter before she was born but found that once the daily routine of parenting began, their concerns disappeared.

Discussion

This study took a systemic approach to deeply understand the experiences and meaning-making of lesbian-parented families from the perspectives of both mothers and their young children who have been previously underrepresented in the family systems literature.

A major theme seen in all the families was the concept of intentionality. Intentionality in creating their families, intentionality in where they lived and travelled, and intentionality in their discussions with their children around LGBQ issues and discrimination. Similar forms of intentionality have been seen in the literature before. For example, the lesbian women in Hayman, Wilkes, Halcomb, and Jackson (2015) discussed the deliberate choices they made around becoming mothers through a sperm donor. The current study also found that motherhood through marriage and becoming a stepmother was experienced as similarly deliberate and intentional. The children in the current study experienced this intentionality of motherhood through the love, security, and safety they felt from both their mothers.

Mothers also specifically discussed an intentionality of where they travelled, lived, and sent their children to school. Even before creating their families, many of the women discussed purposeful moves to large metropolitan areas that were known to be open and accepting. Nabors (2012) noted that moving away to a less stigmatizing environment is one stigma management technique that minorities employ. Similarly, the intention many of the mothers discussed in picking schools for their children was also consistent with the literature, as Lindsay et al. (2006) found that lesbian mothers actively selected schools based on their commitment to and demonstration of multiculturalism and the presence of other LGBT-parented families.

The effect of this intentionality of where they lived appeared salient throughout the other themes in this study. Both children and mothers reported positive experiences in coming out and being open about their families, with many of the children having peers within their school who also had LBGQ-parented families. And most of the time, coming out appeared to be a “nonissue” for the children in this study. None of them reported being hesitant to disclose to others. Farr et al. (2016) similarly found most of their participants were willing to be open about their families, although a few of their participants discussed fears of rejection and bullying. In the current study, it was the mothers that appeared most concerned about potential bullying and discrimination. They reported having intentional discussions with their children around discrimination, differences, and their experiences being a part of an LGBQ-parented family. These deliberate discussions were reflected in the children’s ability to understand their families and handle negative reactions from peers. While it appeared to be the exception rather than the rule, a few children did report incidents with peers when they were teased or made to feel “different.” These incidents did not appear to negatively influence the children’s perceptions of their family, which is consistent with how the children in Farr et al. (2016) discussed their experiences of bullying.

The mothers’ concerns around potential discrimination seemed fitting, given that they reported more negative experiences than their children. Many of the mothers reported barriers and obstacles during their journey to become mothers (e.g., through the adoption process or sperm banks). They also noted negative experiences in how individuals talked about their families (e.g., asking intrusive questions around the conception of their children, denying their right to be considered a “family” when trying to board a plane during family boarding) and the heteronormative assumptions others made (e.g., that one mother was a nanny). These experiences were not particularly new for LGBQ parents and have been seen before in the research (Hayman, Wilkes, Halcomb, & Jackson, 2013, 2015). Still it is important to note that most of the families also acknowledged the assumptions they had made about others in the context of both political and religious affiliation, specifically assuming that politically conservative and Christian individuals would not accept their families. Many of the families went on to discuss the positive moments in which people they met and interacted with challenged these assumptions and surprised them in a positive manner.

While being open was a nonissue for children, many of the mothers felt the need to be out. Mothers felt it was helpful to disclose their sexual orientation to others, in order to cut down on awkwardness. They also noted that children will “out you anyway.” This was consistent with previous findings that parenthood may force individuals to come out (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Lindsay et al., 2006). Being out appeared to allow these families to become advocates within their communities. Reflecting Nabors’s (2012) description of the stigma management techniques of activism, volunteering, and educating, many families—both mothers and children—described being involved in activism at the political level to advocate for marriage equality.

Experiences around gender and gender roles were discussed by both mothers and their children. Children were aware of gender within their families. They differentiated between mothers and fathers and their attributes (e.g., mothers as “sweet” and fathers as “stinky”). Many of the children expressed positive attitudes around being raised by mothers rather than a father. They differentiated between their parents based on the roles they took on rather than gender. One mother acknowledged her own “internalized homophobia,” and many of the mothers discussed wanting their children to have male influences in their lives. Even though the research shows that children of LBGQ parents fare just as well or better than children of straight relationships (Bos & Gartrell, 2010; Fedewa et al., 2015; Goldberg & Garcia, 2016), Biblarz and Stacey (2010) noted that there is a consensus entrenched in our societal values that children raised by both a mother and a father develop more successfully. Some mothers in this study appeared to struggle with this conflict between these internalized societal beliefs and their own experiences. In a similar yet separate experience, Van Ewyk and Kruger (2017) found that lesbian mothers also struggled with internalized societal ideals and heteronormative beliefs, specifically around the definition of motherhood. It appears that internalized heteronormative beliefs are something that lesbian mothers may grapple with across multiple domains.

Perhaps the most important message woven throughout the experiences of mothers and children in the study is the balance between defining their family both as normal and as special. Mothers alluded to this dialectical tension and shifted along the dialectic as they spoke about their families, struggling between the reality of this difference from the norm yet wondering how meaningful this difference truly is. Children appeared to struggle less with this tension, stating frankly that their families are both special and completely normal. This appears consistent with Farr et al. (2016), who found that children were aware of the differences in their families, without necessarily connecting these differences with negative feelings, as positive conceptualizations of their family outweighed the negative.

What was clear for all members of the family was that they did not see themselves only as lesbian-parented families. Mothers particularly emphasized how other identities (e.g., Latina, mother) were often more salient than their identity as lesbian or the family identity as a lesbian-parented family. All families reported that they had faced minimal sexual orientation-based discrimination as a family. Thus, the mothers felt free to focus on raising their children without worrying about active discrimination in their local communities. Because mothers in this sample were intentional about where they lived, they felt they were able to integrate into communities. Some mothers noted that being gay or lesbian would have prevented them from getting married or being parents in the recent past. In essence, they felt that being a parent, as well as getting married, has included them in a different world—a world that some mothers did not think would be possible to be part of earlier in their lives.

Clinical Implications

This study fills a gap in the current literature on lesbian-parented families, by combining the voices of both mothers and young children through family interviews. The results from this study present multiple implications for MFCs. A primary finding was the dialectic tension between “difference and no difference.” It was important to each of the interviewed mothers that they were seen as “just like everyone else.” It was with the building of rapport and through validation that families were able to open up to have more personal and sensitive conversations regarding sexual orientation. This dialectic illustrates the necessity of MFCs to keep in mind clients’ intersecting identities. Participants shared that they would not necessarily seek out a therapist who is experienced with LGBQ-specific issues, as they felt that they would not likely present to therapy for issues specifically related to their sexual orientation. Rather, they would look for a therapist who was open to all parts of their identities. For the adult participants in this study, their identity as mothers was most salient in their day-to-day lives, yet sexual orientation became more salient at moments of discrimination or institutional barriers. Singling out one particular diversity factor, such as sexual orientation, may negate or minimize other aspects of a person’s identity, and thus it is important for MFCs to view clients’ identities from a holistic, developmental, and intersectional perspective. These conversations about sexual orientation could be situated within a wider conversation about diversity to avoid singling out one aspect of clients’ identities that may or may not be salient for them at that point in time. As one mother emphasized, “When you categorize us as a LGBT family, I mean, obviously that’s what we are, but…. I don’t think that should be the title of it. We’re a family.”

The results of this study also have direct implications for ways to approach and aid lesbian-headed families in therapy. One protective factor for families is having a unique and cohesive identity as a family (Breshears, 2011; Farr, Crain, Oakley, Cashen, & Garber, 2016). MFCs can aid in furthering this bond of lesbian-parented families by focusing on the benefits of having two mothers. Additionally, as many of the families in this study noted, having conversations with their children about possible discrimination was extremely helpful in promoting resilience. Many of the mothers in this study had training in mental health fields and may have been more experienced in having difficult conversations around diversity and discrimination. It may be necessary for MFCs to facilitate these conversations between parents who are less comfortable with these topics and their children to help develop a strong family narrative. Lastly, extended social networks and family support were extremely important to the families in this study. MFCs can work with parents in discussing how relationships with their families of origin have changed over time, specifically regarding their sexual orientation and inclusivity. It may be relevant to extend the invitation of family therapy to the extended family when appropriate or aid parents in developing an extended network of friends that can support them.

MFCs must examine their own assumptions and biases around gender, sexual orientation, and families before working with these individuals (McGeorge & Carlson, 2011). Similarly, MFCs can also work with families to challenge the family members’ own assumptions and beliefs they hold. Many participants noted, for example, assumptions they made based on other people’s religious views or political affiliation. They felt that their eyes were opened when stereotypes they held were broken and they were embraced by unexpected individuals. MFCs could help clients become more aware of inherent biases they hold that may serve as barriers to connection within their neighborhoods, schools, and communities.

Another way that MFCs can challenge their clients in session is around gender. As evident in this study, both the young children and parents had clear views of the differences between mothers and fathers and the perceived need for both influences. MFCs could encourage a more critical perspective that could serve to identify internalized heteronormative beliefs and to acknowledge potential shame that lesbian parents experience if they perceive they are not able to provide their children with what they need. MFCs can use research to challenge the belief that children may not fare as well in a single-gendered home. MFCs can also encourage parents to develop diverse networks of friends and supportive figures in their children’s lives that are not limited to gender differences.

From a social justice perspective, MFCs can make a difference for these individuals through direct advocacy and empowering these individuals to advocate for themselves. This may look like advocating in schools for more diverse families to be represented in the curricula or ensuring clients have access to these types of materials for children. Many participants also described institutional barriers to having children, including experiencing stereotypes about how or even if they should have children. Legal issues around adoption and donorship were commonly experienced. MFCs could play an important role in educating others as well as minimizing parents’ sense of having to be “approved” as parents by the government, adoption agencies, or fertility clinics. Lastly, MFCs could help families feel empowered by discussing ways in which they feel comfortable and safe advocating for themselves.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study had several limitations. The mothers in this study were relatively homogeneous and had multiple privileged identities. Most were Caucasian (two identified as Latina), upper middle class, in their late 30s to late 40s, and mental health professionals were highly overrepresented. Their experiences and self-reflections may not be representative of the lived experiences of other lesbian-parented families. This study also did not focus specifically on gender identity. Individuals who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming likely would bring a new perspective to this research. There was also an inherent self-selection bias of those women who chose to participate, and social desirability may have impacted the experiences shared by the women in this study.

Future studies could seek to incorporate participants with other diversity factors including differences in socioeconomic status, religion, geographic location, and gay male or transgender parents. For example, as the research suggests, society may attribute different parenting roles to fathers, and men as parents may face more societal barriers (Kimberly & Moore, 2015). Additionally, while it may be more difficult to conduct research with families living in rural areas, this may be important to explore, as their experiences are likely different. Overall, more research can also be done on the various themes that emerged from this study. The barriers lesbians face when having children was a common theme across many of the mothers in this study. Second, while the expectations of extended family involvement have been explored regarding ethnic and class differences (Gerstel, 2011), this appeared to be a theme for the families in this study and warrants further research. The July 26, 2015, Supreme Court ruling ( Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), which legalized marriage equality nationwide, occurred following the completion of this study. It is likely, as societal views of marriage equality and lesbian-parented families shift, so will the experiences of these individuals and the implications of current and further research.

Conclusion

Society has made radical changes over the past few decades regarding LGBQ individuals and their families. As times continue to change and the numbers of lesbian-parented families continue to grow, MFCs must continue to develop their awareness and understanding of these families as systems with their own unique challenges and strengths. This study examined these families from a unique systemic lens, not comparing these families to heterosexual-parented households but rather working to understand their experiences together as families. In conclusion, as one of the children stated, “Every family is special.”

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ariel

McPherson

D. W.

(2000). Therapy with lesbian and gay parents and their children. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 421–432.

Ben-Ari

Livni

(2006). Motherhood is not a given thing: Experiences and constructed meanings of biological and nonbiological lesbian mothers. Sex Roles, 54, 521–531. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9016-0

Biblarz

T. J.

Stacey

(2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x

Bos

Gartrell

(2010). Adolescents of the USA national longitudinal lesbian family study: Can family characteristics counteract the negative effects of stigmatization? Family Process, 49, 559–572. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01340.x

Breshears

(2011). Understanding communication between lesbian parents and their children regarding outsider discourse about family identity. Journal of GLBT Studies, 7, 264–284. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2011.564946

Cody

P. A.

Farr

R. H.

McRoy

R. G.

Ayers-Lopez

S. J.

Ledesma

K. J.

(2017). Youth perspectives on being adopted from foster care by lesbian and gay parents: Implications for families and adoption professionals. Adoption Quarterly, 20, 98–118. doi:10.1080/10926755.2016.1200702

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Farr

R. H.

Crain

E. E.

Oakley

M. K.

Cashen

K. K.

Garber

K. J.

(2016). Microaggressions, feelings of difference, and resilience among adopted children with sexual minority parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0353-6

Fedewa

A. L.

Black

W. W.

Ahn

(2015). Children and adolescents with same-gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 1–34. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.869486

10.

Gartrell

Rodas

Deck

Peyser

Banks

(2005). The national lesbian family study: 4. Interviews with 10-year-old children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.518

11.

Gates

G. J.

(2017). In U.S., more adults identifying as LGBT. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx?g_source=Social%20Issues&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

12.

Gerstel

(2011). Rethinking families and community: The color, class, and centrality of extended kin ties. Sociological Forum, 26, 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01222.x

13.

Goldberg

A. E.

Garcia

R. L.

(2016). Gender-typed behavior over time in children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/fam0000226

14.

Hartwell

E. E.

Serovich

J. M.

Grafsky

E. L.

Kerr

Z. Y.

(2012). Coming out of the dark: Content analysis of articles pertaining to gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in couples and family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 227–243. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00274.x

15.

Hayman

Wilkes

Halcomb

Jackson

(2013). Marginalised mothers: Lesbian women negotiating heteronormative healthcare services. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal of the Australian Nursing Profession, 44, 120–127. doi:10.5172/conu.2013.44.1.120

16.

Hayman

Wilkes

Halcomb

Jackson

(2015). Lesbian women choosing motherhood: The journey to conception. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 395–409. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2014.921801

17.

Hosking

Mulholland

Baird

(2015). “We are doing just fine”: The children of Australian gay and lesbian parents speak out. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 327–350. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2014.988378

18.

Kimbeerly

Moore

(2015). Attitudes to practice: National survey of adoption obstacles faced by gay and lesbian protective parents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 27, 436–456. doi:10.1080/10538720.2015.1085347

19.

Lindsay

Perlesz

Brown

McNair

de Vaus

Pitts

(2006). Stigma or respect: Lesbian-parented families negotiating school settings. Sociology, 40, 1059–1077. doi:10.1177/0038038506069845

20.

McGeorge

Carlson

T. S.

(2011). Deconstructing heterosexism: Becoming an LBG affirming heterosexual couple and family therapist. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37, 14–26. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00149.x

21.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

22.

Miller

B. G.

Kors

Macfie

(2017). No differences? Meta-analytic comparisons of psychological adjustment in children of gay fathers and heterosexual parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 14–22. doi:10.1037/sgd0000203

23.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Nabors

N. A.

(2012). The social psychology of stigma. In Nettles

Balter

(Eds.), Multiple minority identities: Applications for practice, research, and training (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Springer.

25.

Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., No. 14-556, United States Supreme Court. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

26.

Pew Research Center. (2011). Disapprove of gay and lesbian couples raising children. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/06/02/disapprove-of-gay-and-lesbian-couples-raising-children/

27.

Pew Research Center. (2013). It’s Fathers’ Day for many American men, including 23% of those who are LGBT. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/16/its-fathers-day-for-many-american-men-including-23-of-those-who-are-lgbt/

28.

Rickards

McLeod

(2016). Authenticating family: A grounded theory explaining the process of re/claiming legitimacy of lesbian stepfamilies. The Family Journal, 24, 122–131. doi:10.1177/1066480716628583

29.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

(2017). Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000–2016). Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 1–13. doi:10.1037/sgd0000216

30.

Tasker

Patterson

C. J.

(2007). Research on gay and lesbian parenting. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 9–34. doi:10.1300/J461v03n02_02

31.

Van Ewyk

Kruger

(2017). The emotional experience of motherhood in planned lesbian families in the South African context: “…Look how good a job I'm doing, look how amazing we are.” Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 343–366. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1190216

32.

Welsh

M. G.

(2011). Growing up in a same-sex parented family: The adolescent voice of experience. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 49–71. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2010.537241