Chapter 41
LGBTQ PARENT FAMILIES
Abbie E. Goldberg and Kristin K. Sweeney
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer (LGBTQ) parent families has proliferated over
the past several decades (see Goldberg, 2010, and
Goldberg & Gartrell, 2014, for reviews), although
gaps in our understanding of these populations
remain. In this chapter, we address existing work on
LGBTQ parent families, emphasizing the literature in
couple and family psychology (Goldberg, 2009). We
focus primarily on lesbian/gay (LG) parent families,
since these are the populations that most often are
studied. We present research on bisexual and queer
(Ross & Dobinson, 2013) as well as transgender
parent families (Downing, 2013) when possible.
The topic of LGBTQ parenting has grown more
visible over the past several decades, both within
the United States and internationally (Goldberg &
Gartrell, 2014). Alongside greater media coverage
of topics related to LGBTQ parents and their chil-
dren, research on these families’ experiences has also
expanded. Although providing insight into many
aspects of LGBTQ family life, this work has been
limited in terms of the predominant populations
studied (e.g., lesbian mothers, White families) and
topics under investigation (e.g., child behavioral
functioning). Using the life cycle of LGBTQ parent
families (Goldberg, 2009) and systems theory
(Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993) as organiza-
tional frameworks, we address the main areas in
1 The term cisgender refers to people whose gender identity is the same as the gender identity that was assigned to them at birth (Tate, Youssef, &
Bettergarcia, 2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000099-041
APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, Methods, and Contemporary Issues Across the Lifespan, B. H. Fiese (Editor-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2019 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology: Foundations, Methods, and
Contemporary Issues Across the Lifespan, edited by B. H. Fiese, M. Celano, K.
Deater-Deckard, E. N. Jouriles, and M. A. Whisman
Copyright © 2019 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
which research has been conducted. We focus on
(a) family building, (b) the transition to parent-
hood, (c) LGBTQ parents’ well-being and relation-
ships, (d) children’s well-being and development,
(e) parent–child relationships, (f) the role of key
systems (e.g., the legal sphere), (g) areas in need
of further research, and (h) recommendations for
practitioners.
FAMILY BUILDING
Having children and starting a family is often
considered one of the major markers of adulthood,
along with establishing a career, getting married,
clarifying one’s values, and exploring one’s identity
(Arnett & Tanner, 2006). In many ways, this tran-
sition may be different for LGBTQ individuals in
comparison to their heterosexual and cisgender1
peers. Some research has explored sexual minori-
ties’ experiences of becoming parents: namely, their
choice of and experiences with different family-
building routes. LGBTQ young adults may delay or
forgo parenthood because of societal stigma, as well
as different norms within LGBTQ communities that
may not emphasize parenting (Goldberg, 2010).
However, this tendency appears to be declining, as
LGBTQ parenthood becomes more widely visible
and accessible (Goldberg, 2012). The phenomenon
743
 Goldberg and Sweeney

of becoming a parent in the context of a same-sex heterosexual relationships in young adulthood,

relationship (e.g., via donor insemination, surrogacy,
and adoption) has increased due in part to greater
societal acceptance of sexual minority parenting
as well as advancements in reproductive technolo-
gies (Goldberg, 2010). Also, some sexual minorities
become parents in the context of heterosexual rela-
tionships, as opposed to conceiving or adopting in
the context of same-sex unions (Gates, 2013). These
individuals may enter same-sex relationships once
their children are born or adopted, and their chil-
dren may thus be raised in LGB stepfamilies (Tasker,
2013; see Chapter 39, this volume, for general
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
then later coming out as LG) and it becomes more
acceptable to pursue parenthood in the context of
same-sex unions (Tasker, 2013). Gates (2011)
suggested that planned parenting among same-sex
couples, as evidenced by the presence of adopted
children in the household, is increasing. In 2000,
1 in 10 same-sex couples with children reported
having an adopted child; by the end of that decade,
the figure was nearly one in five. Echoing these
trends, research has increasingly focused on planned
lesbian families, as opposed to arrangements in
which LG women had their children in the context

research on stepparenting and remarriage).2
Of these family types, LGB stepfamily arrange-
ments (formed following heterosexual relationship
dissolution) likely represent the most common
(Gates, 2011, 2013) and may be particularly likely
to occur among bisexual persons, who are more
likely to be parents than are gay men and lesbians
(Gates, 2011, 2013), and for whom patterns of fam-
ily formation are particularly diverse (e.g., they may
be single parents or become parents in the context of
same-sex or different-sex relationships; Power et al.,
2012). However, their unique experiences are ren-
dered invisible insomuch as, in the context of same-
sex relationships, bisexual and queer persons are
assumed to be gay; when partnered in different-sex
relationships, they are presumed to be heterosexual
(Ross & Dobinson, 2013).
Although LGB stepfamilies may remain common
for bisexual persons, they may become less common
for LG persons over time, as increasing social
acceptance supports LG individuals in coming out
at earlier stages in life (as opposed to engaging in
of different-sex unions and then came out or formed
same-sex unions following the dissolution of their
heterosexual relationships (Tasker, 2013).
Considering planned lesbian families, a common
method of family building is donor insemination.
Female couples who use donor insemination to form
families must make a number of important deci-
sions, including what type of donor to use (known
or anonymous) and who will carry the child. Women
who select unknown donors often do so out of a
desire to avoid third-party involvement, unclear
boundaries, or custody challenges (Goldberg, 2010),
whereas women who select known donors often feel
strongly that their children deserve access to their
biological heritage (Goldberg & Allen, 2013a).3 The
decision of who to carry the child is also significant,
in that this determines who will have the experience
of pregnancy and birth (Goldberg, 2010).
Once these decisions have been made, female
same-sex couples may face various barriers and
challenges, including insensitive treatment by
health professionals (e.g., failure to acknowledge the

2
Most LGB parents likely have their children within different-sex relationships (Gates, 2011). A Pew Research Center (2013) survey of LGBT
Americans found that, consistent with other population-based surveys (Gates, 2013), more than a third (35%) of LGBT individuals report having
been a parent. But the findings suggest that parenting is substantially higher among bisexual persons than gay men or lesbians. An estimated 59% of
bisexual women and 32% of bisexual men report having had children, compared with 31% of lesbians and 16% of gay men. These figures imply that
nearly two thirds of LGB parents (64%) are bisexual.
3
Historically, the decision of who will carry the child has also been significant, in that the biological mother is automatically the legal parent, whereas
the nonbiological mother in some states has been unable to complete a second-parent adoption to gain legal rights (Human Rights Campaign, 2014).
With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes marriage by same-sex couples legal in all 50 states, many people have assumed that parental rights
issues for same-sex couples will disappear. In fact, parentage is (generally) not conclusively established through marriage for same-sex or different-
sex couples, although there is a marital presumption that applies: namely, the husband of a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the father of
child (although this presumption can be rebutted in certain circumstances, through, for example, evidence of nonbiological connection). Hence,
in some states, nonbiological married fathers who are the intended parents in different-sex marriages are technically just as vulnerable to questions
of parentage as are nonbiological parents in same-sex marriages. In turn, the recommendation that nonbiological lesbian mothers continue to com-
plete second-parent (or stepparent) adoptions still stands (despite the reality that most husbands in different-sex marriage do not complete these).
Advocacy is currently being focused on ensuring that marital presumptions of parentage apply equally regardless of whether marriage is same- or
different-sex (D. NeJaime & G. Gates, personal communication, July 20, 2015).

744

nonbirthing partner in prenatal classes) and clinic
forms that are inappropriate for lesbian or bisexual
patients (e.g., they assume a heterosexual family;
Goldberg, Downing, & Richardson, 2009). Further,
in the event of infertility or miscarriage, sexual
minority women may experience poor treatment by
health providers (e.g., providers may minimize the
grief of the noncarrying partner), which can exacer-
bate stress (Cacciatore & Raffo, 2011; Goldberg
et al., 2009; Peel, 2010). Lesbian couples who expe-
rience pregnancy loss typically face nonsupport on
several levels: they encounter a lack of validation
of their loss (which is typical for all couples who
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
miscarry) and a lack of support for their same-sex
relationship (Peel, 2010).
Both female and male same-sex couples may also
seek to adopt as a means of becoming parents. In
fact, same-sex couples are at least 4 times as likely
to pursue adoption as different-sex couples (Gates,
2013; see Chapter 40, this volume). Same-sex couples
may pursue international adoption, public domestic
adoption (i.e., through the child welfare system), or
private domestic adoption (e.g., through a lawyer or
adoption agency). Some LGB parents are drawn to
private domestic adoption with an open arrangement
because of an interest in maintaining contact with or
gaining information about the birth family (Goldberg,
2010) or because of the greater likelihood of adopting
an infant (Goldberg, 2010). Other LGB parents are
drawn to international adoption because they believe
that birth mothers are unlikely to choose them
(Brodzinsky, 2003). Finally, financial considerations,
as well as altruistic reasons, often motivate adoption
via the child welfare system (i.e., public, or foster
care, adoption; Goldberg, 2012). Regardless of what
adoption route they choose, same-sex couples may
encounter adoption agencies and professionals who
hold discriminatory stereotypes and attitudes toward
LGB people and who in turn may sabotage potential
adoptive placements (Goldberg, 2010).
A small number of sexual minorities, mainly
men, pursue surrogacy (Bergman, Rubio, Green, &
Padron, 2010; Berkowitz, 2013). Due to its high cost
(more than $100,000 on average) and the fact that it
is not legal in all states, surrogacy is an option for a
small number of sexual minorities (Bergman et al.,
2010; Berkowitz, 2013), who often are motivated
LGBTQ Parent Families
by the desire to have a biological child (Berkowitz,
2013; Goldberg, 2012).
Some LGB individuals and couples pursue
coparenting arrangements. For example, a gay male
couple and a lesbian couple might become parents
together, whereby one woman would be impreg-
nated with the sperm from one of the men (Bos,
2010). Some single gay men also elect to conceive
and raise children with single heterosexual women
(Erera & Segal-Engelchin, 2014).
Turning to transgender people, surveys indicate
that as many as half of trans people want to become
parents; and 20% to 40% of trans people are already
parents (Grant, Mottet, & Tanis, 2011; Pyne, Bauer,
& Bradley, 2015). The limited work on trans par-
ents indicates that they often become parents in the
context of different-sex relationships, prior to
transitioning (Haines, Ajayi, & Boyd, 2014), and
most are the biological parents of their children
(Pyne et al., 2015). However, a minority have chil-
dren after transitioning; a gender transition opens
up the possibility of parenting and identifying in
a way that is congruent with one’s gender identity
(Pyne, 2012).
Fearing discrimination in adoption, trans people
may be more likely to try to have children biologi-
cally (Ellis, Wojnar, & Pettinato, 2015; Pyne, 2012),
but in doing so, they must navigate transphobia
in the context of a health care system that tends to
be based on the gender binary (James-Abra et al.,
2015; Light, Obedin-Maliver, Sevelius, & Kerns,
2014). Trans people who transition with the use of
medical means (e.g., hormones, surgery) and who
want to have children in the future may preserve
their gametes prior to initiating a medical transition
(e.g., trans women may preserve sperm and trans
men may preserve their oocytes, particularly if
they are undergoing surgery to remove the ovaries;
James-Abra et al., 2015). Once they decide to have
children, trans people may require medical assis-
tance to help them do so (e.g., a trans man may seek
insemination with donor sperm, a woman may seek
insemination using the cryopreserved sperm of her
trans partner; James-Abra et al., 2015).
Studies examining the experiences of trans men
who become pregnant suggest that some conceive via
intercourse while others use donor insemination,
745
 Goldberg and Sweeney
and some may access fertility treatment (Light et al.,
2014; Pyne, 2012). Prior to becoming pregnant,
trans men who receive testosterone hormone treat-
ment must stop treatments to increase their fertil-
ity, which can be a scary and uncertain process, as
it can lead to changes in body shape, emotional
experiences, and identity (Ellis et al., 2015). The
pregnancy itself can involve joy about having a child
but also conflict between one’s internal gender iden-
tity and a society that perceives pregnant people as
women, as well as loneliness due to a lack of support
or resources for transgender male gestational parents
(Ellis et al., 2015; Light et al., 2014). The actual
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
birth can be especially uncomfortable for trans men,
as their bodies are on display in a medical setting,
leading some to prefer cesarean sections or home
births, instead of vaginal births in the hospital
(Ellis et al., 2015; Light et al., 2014).
As they build their families, trans people may
use a variety of strategies to manage the stressors of
becoming a parent in a heterosexist society, including
finding new identities for themselves that affirm both
their gender identity and their parenthood, such as
mother, father, gestational parent, and carrier; advo-
cating for themselves in health care settings; avoid-
ing confrontation; and carefully choosing when, and
when not, to disclose their trans identity in different
settings (Ellis et al., 2015; James-Abra et al., 2015;
Light et al., 2014; Pyne, 2012).
LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS TRANSITIONING
TO PARENTHOOD
Several longitudinal studies have followed LG
parents through the transition to parenthood and
beyond (e.g., Gartrell et al., 1999; Goldberg &
Perry-Jenkins, 2007; Goldberg, Smith, & Kashy,
2010). This work has revealed that, similar to par-
ents in different-sex relationships, same-sex parents’
well-being (Goldberg & Smith, 2011) and relation-
ship quality (Goldberg et al., 2010) declines some-
what across the transition, although high levels
of support may serve as a buffer to such declines.
No work has examined trans parents’ well-being or
relationships across the transition to parenthood, but
some work suggests that trans men who bear children
are vulnerable to distress from being misidentified
746
by society as mothers, although they may prefer
terms such as father, gestational parent, or carrier
(Light et al., 2014; for general research on the transi-
tion to parenthood, see Chapter 26, this volume).
Same-sex couples continue to share the division
of labor more equally than different-sex couples
when they become parents (Goldberg, Smith, &
Perry-Jenkins, 2012; Patterson, Sutfin, & Fulcher,
2004). When differences in contributions to paid
and unpaid labor among lesbian couples who pur-
sued donor insemination do occur, such differences
usually are along the lines of biology, whereby bio-
logical mothers perform more housework and child-
care and nonbiological mothers work more hours
in paid employment (Goldberg & Perry-Jenkins,
2007); this arrangement arises in part because of the
demands of breastfeeding. Moore (2008) found that
in lesbian stepparent families, biological mothers per-
formed more housework than stepmothers, which
facilitated their greater power over household deci-
sion making. No work has examined the division of
labor in couples where one or both parents are trans,
although a study of nonparent trans men partnered
with women found that divisions of labor sometimes
mirrored the inequalities found in heterosexual
couples (Pfeffer, 2010).
Scholars have tended to downplay inequities
between same-sex partners (e.g., in terms of paid
and unpaid work), in part because of the dominance
of the egalitarian ethic—the notion that same-sex
couples are more equal than different-sex couples—
as well as the assumption that differential contribu-
tions always cause tension (Gabb, 2005). Lack of
attention to inequity has perpetuated the notion
that all same-sex couples share equitably and equity
is good for everyone, which in turn may alien-
ate same-sex couples whose arrangements do not
adhere to this egalitarian utopia (Gabb, 2005). For
some couples, equality in work distribution may be
difficult because of structural constraints—one part-
ner may have a more flexible schedule or earn less,
exerting pressure on the couple to divide up labor
unevenly (Goldberg, Smith, & Perry-Jenkins, 2012).
Preferences also impact labor divisions: Some par-
ents prefer to be a primary parent, while others pre-
fer to focus more of their energy in the work sphere
(Downing & Goldberg, 2011).

Changes in family support may also accompany
the transition to parenthood (Goldberg, 2012). LGB
parents may perceive less support from members of
their family of origin than do heterosexual parents
(Goldberg, 2010) but tend to report greater support
from family members than LGB individuals without
children (DeMino, Appleby, & Fisk, 2007). Family
members may become more supportive once a child
enters the picture (Gartrell et al., 1999; Goldberg,
2010; Goldberg, 2012) because they may push aside
negative views of homosexuality or seek to repair
problematic relationships in the interest of develop-
ing a relationship with a new grandchild or niece
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
or nephew (Goldberg, 2012). In some cases, family
ties may actually be strengthened by the arrival of a
child, such that LG parents report greater closeness
to their own parents after becoming parents them-
selves (Gartrell et al., 1999; Goldberg, 2012).
But not all family members become more sup-
portive and involved across the transition. Some LG
parents, upon announcing their intention to parent,
encounter diminished support from their families,
who oppose this decision on moral or religious
grounds, or because they believe that life as a child
of LG parents will be too difficult (Goldberg, 2012).
Level of involvement and support by family mem-
bers may also vary depending on their biological
relationship to the child. In female couples in which
one partner gives birth, this decision may have
implications for family of origin support and engage-
ment, such that those who cannot claim a biological
relationship to the child may be less involved in his
or her life (Goldberg, 2010; Nordqvist, 2015).
The limited work on family support for trans
people across the transition to parenthood suggests
that having children can be isolating for some, as it
may separate them from other trans people who are
not parents (Ellis et al., 2015). Trans parents may also
feel excluded from LGB parent communities due to
transphobia within the community (Ryan, 2009). On
the other hand, trans persons who are more “stealth,”
passing as their identified gender to most people in
their lives, may receive social support during pre-
parenthood from friends, family, and coworkers who
don’t know of their natal sex; in these cases, having
children can disrupt their social support networks by
forcing them to come out (Ellis et al., 2015).
LGBTQ Parent Families
PARENTS WHO COME OUT AS LGBTQ
AFTER HAVING CHILDREN
For persons who had children in the context of
different-sex relationships prior to coming out as
LGB, the key transition at hand is coming out and
merging their new LGB identity with that of being
a parent (Lynch, 2004). A modest body of research,
mainly conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, examines
the experiences of LGB people who come out after
heterosexual marriage and parenthood (see Tasker,
2013). There are many reasons why individuals who
later came to identify as LGB entered heterosexual
marriages and had children in this context. Some
had little or no awareness of same-sex attraction
when they got married (Coleman, 1990), while
others were aware of same-sex attraction but felt
pressured (e.g., by family) to marry (Pearcey, 2005).
Coming out as LGB to family members, particu-
larly spouses, can be difficult. Some LGB people may
delay coming out for fear of rejection and relation-
ship dissolution, whereas for others coming out can
mean increased honesty and closeness with family
members (Benson, Silverstein, & Auerbach, 2005).
Research on heterosexual partner reactions reveals
that heterosexual partners may go through a process
involving feelings of confusion, shock, and rejection
before eventually moving toward acceptance and
negotiation (Buxton, 2006).
Coming out as LGB within a heterosexual
marriage usually leads to divorce, although some
studies indicate that while most couples divorce,
a significant minority of couples (1 in 6 in some
studies; Buxton, 2006) remain together for at least
3 years after a partner discloses an LGB identity
(Buxton, 2005). Couples who stay together may
find new ways to enhance their relationship and
negotiate new friendships and romantic relation-
ships (Buxton, 2005).
Research on children’s reactions to parental dis-
closure of an LGB identity indicates that children’s
difficulties are primarily related to their feelings
about their parents’ separation rather than to issues
specific to having an LGB parent (Turner et al.,
1990). Some children react positively to parental
disclosure of an LGB identity; disclosure can lead
to closer parent–child relationships. Other children
react negatively, particularly if they are older or have
747
 Goldberg and Sweeney
internalized societal homophobia (Lynch & Murray,
2000; Turner et al., 1990). In some cases, a parent’s
coming out is accompanied by the formation of LGB
stepparent families (Lynch, 2004). The formation of
LGB stepfamilies is similar to the formation of hetero­
sexual stepfamilies in that children retain closer
relationships to their biological parents (Goldberg &
Allen, 2013b), but LGB stepfamilies also face unique
issues, such as coping with stigma (Robitaille &
Saint-Jacques, 2009).
Coming out as trans after having children via
heterosexual relationships may be even more chal-
lenging to the family system. Coming out as trans,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
and undergoing a gender transition, challenges soci-
etal beliefs regarding the permanency of gender and
normative notions of feminine and masculine as tied
to biological sex. In turn, trans parents may experi-
ence stigma within their families (Pyne, 2012). In
some families, coming out may lead to relationship
dissolution and distancing of the trans parent, but
in others it may facilitate closer, more authentic
relationships within the family (Downing, 2013;
Veldorale-Griffin, 2014).
Research indicates that the effects of disclosure
of transgender identity on intimate relationships are
diverse. Some partners of trans individuals undergo
stages of acceptance that may involve reexamining
one’s own gender beliefs and identity and what it
means to have a family (Erhartdt, 2006). Lesbian
partners of female-to-male individuals may ques-
tion if they are still a lesbian with a partner who
identifies as female-to-male (Ryan, 2009), whereas
heterosexual partners may mourn the “loss” of their
traditional, heterosexual marriage (Erhartdt, 2006).
While some partners move toward acceptance
(Erhartdt, 2006), others react with hostility, and
conflicts over parenting roles may lead to relation-
ship dissolution (Haines et al., 2014; Pyne, 2012).
This can lead to separation of the trans parent from
their children, particularly as a result of discrimina-
tion within the legal system against the trans parent
in custody cases (Green, 1998; Pyne et al., 2015).
Research on how parental disclosure of a gender
variant identity affects children and parent–child
relationships is limited. Some studies have found
that the coming out process can be a time of conflict
and decreased contact between child and parent
748
(White & Ettner, 2007), while others have found
mostly positive or neutral changes in parent–child
relationships after disclosure (Veldorale-Griffin,
2014). In some families, children adjust quickly and
experience an increased closeness with the parent
(Green, 1998; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014), with younger
children adjusting more quickly than adolescents
and adults (Pyne, 2012; Veldorale-Griffin, 2014).
LGBTQ PARENTS’ WELL-BEING
AND RELATIONSHIPS
Despite concerns that the sexual orientation of LGB
parents will negatively affect children, studies that
have compared LG and heterosexual parents in
terms of their mental health (e.g., parenting stress,
perceived parenting competence) have found few
differences based on family structure (Goldberg
& Smith, 2009, 2011; Golombok et al., 2003;
Shechner, Slone, Lobel, & Shechter, 2013). That
LG parents demonstrate such positive outcomes
suggests remarkable resilience, given that they
develop in a heterosexist society and are vulner-
able to nonsupport from their families of origin as
well as within various societal systems (e.g., the
legal sphere; Goldberg, 2010). Consistent with this,
research has found that LG parents who perceive
less support from family and friends, and who live
in less supportive legal contexts, report poorer men-
tal health (Goldberg & Smith, 2008, 2011, 2013b;
Shechner et al., 2013). Other conditions that have
been linked to poorer well-being among LG par-
ents include internalized homophobia (Goldberg &
Smith, 2011), child behavior problems (Goldberg
& Smith, 2008), and low parenting satisfaction
(Lavner, Waterman, & Peplau, 2014). Qualitative
work highlights the ways in which multiple system-
level stressors (i.e., adopting via foster care, encoun-
tering stigma in the adoption process) may combine
to place stress on LG parents (Goldberg, Moyer,
Kinkler, & Richardson, 2012).
Research on stigma and mental health among
bisexual parents is sparse. Some studies have
found that bisexual people in general have poorer
mental health than LG and heterosexual persons
(Fredriksen-Goldsen, Kim, Barkan, Balsam, &
Mincer, 2010), and bisexual mothers have been

found to have poorer mental health than lesbian
mothers (Ross, Siegel, Dobinson, Epstein, & Steele,
2012). This may be because bisexual people not
only are exposed to heterosexism in the broader
society but also experience invisibility and lack of
support from LG communities (Ross & Dobinson,
2013). Likewise, research indicates that trans indi-
viduals have higher rates of mental health concerns
(e.g., depression, suicidal ideation) than the gen-
eral population, which is closely linked with their
experiences of discrimination (Grant et al., 2011).
However, no known research to date has examined
the mental health of trans parents specifically.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Regarding parents’ intimate relationships, some
studies have found similar levels of relationship
quality (including love and conflict) among LG and
heterosexual parents (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson,
2010a; Goldberg et al., 2010). Greater social support,
a more positive sexual identity, greater sexual satis-
faction, and less work–family strain have been linked
to higher relationship quality in sexual minority
parents (Farr et al., 2010a; Goldberg et al., 2010).
Little research has examined the relationship
quality of bisexual parents, although one study
found that bisexual mothers who reported sexual
activity with men in the past 5 years experienced
lower relationship quality than lesbian mothers who
reported sexual activity with only women in the past
5 years (Ross et al., 2012). Also, while some work
examines the effects of parental transgender disclo-
sure and gender transition on family relationships,
there is no research on the relationship quality expe-
rienced by trans parents who have completed gender
transition (Downing, 2013). One study, however,
found that financial hardship and stigma experi-
ences were associated with poor relationship quality
in nonparent couples consisting of trans women
partnered with men (Gamarel, Reisner, Laurenceau,
Nemoto, & Operario, 2014).
Studies of relationship dissolution in LG parent
families are rare, but they suggest similar rates of
dissolution across family types (Goldberg & Garcia,
2015; Goldberg, Moyer, Black, & Henry, 2015). A
study of LG and heterosexual adoptive couples found
that only 8% of the sample ended their relationships in
the first 5 years of parenthood, with dissolution being
more likely among parents who (a) had adopted an
LGBTQ Parent Families
older child and (b) felt less prepared for the adoption
(Goldberg & Garcia, 2015). While parents who come
out as trans in a preexisting relationship are at higher
risk for relationship dissolution (Green, 1998), no
work has examined breakups in relationships where
one or both parents have identified as trans since the
start of the relationship.
CHILDREN OF LGBTQ PARENTS
Because homosexuality continues to be stigmatized
in society, researchers have focused on determining
whether the psychological, social, emotional, and
(less often) educational outcomes of children who
have LGB parents differ from those of children who
have heterosexual parents. Investigators also have
examined the gender development and sexual orien-
tation of children who grow up with LGB parents.
Psychological Adjustment
Researchers have documented few differences in
psychological adjustment outcomes in children
and adolescents as a function of family structure
(Goldberg, 2010). That is, there are few differences
between children raised by LG parents versus
heterosexual parents in terms of self-esteem, qual-
ity of life, internalizing problems (e.g., depression),
externalizing problems (e.g., behavioral problems),
or social functioning (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson,
2010b; Goldberg & Smith, 2013a; Golombok et al.,
2003; van Gelderen, Bos, Gartrell, Hermanns, &
Perrin, 2012; but see Golombok et al., 2014, who
found higher levels of externalizing problems in
heterosexual parent families than LG parent families).
Some studies point to potential strengths associated
with growing up in a planned LG parent family.
One large longitudinal study found that adolescents
raised from birth by lesbian mothers were higher
in social competence and self-esteem, and lower in
social problems, aggressive behavior, and substance
abuse, compared with adolescents with heterosexual
parents (Bos, van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2015).
Additionally, young adults cite various strengths
related to growing up with LGB parents, includ-
ing resilience and empathy toward diverse or mar-
ginalized groups (Goldberg, 2010; Sasnett, 2015;
Titlestad & Pooley, 2014).
749
 Goldberg and Sweeney
Cognitive Functioning
and Academic Adjustment
A few studies have examined the cognitive develop-
ment and academic achievement outcomes of chil-
dren with sexual minority parents. These studies,
some of which have used nationally representative
data sets, provide no evidence that children with LG
parents show greater difficulty related to their intel-
lectual functioning (Lavner, Waterman, & Peplau,
2012) or academic and educational outcomes or
progress (Potter, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2010).
Insomuch as parents’ relationship to and involve-
ment in their children’s schools have implications
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
for their children’s academic and school experiences,
some work has explored the factors that are associ-
ated with LG parents’ involvement in and perceptions
of their children’s schools (Goldberg, 2014; Goldberg
& Smith, 2014). A study of LG parents of preschoolers
found that 25% of lesbian mothers and 11% of gay
fathers reported sexual orientation–related challenges
at their children’s schools (e.g., teacher inexperience
with LG parent families, use of heteronormative
language; Goldberg, 2014). Perceptions of stigma
may have implications for school satisfaction and
involvement: Parents who perceive more sexual
orientation–related stigma at their children’s schools
are less satisfied and less involved with their schools
and have lower quality relationships with teachers
(Goldberg & Smith, 2014).
Social Functioning
Studies have also found that the social functioning
and peer relationships of children and adolescents
with LG parents is similar to that of youth with
different-sex parents (Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser,
& Banks, 2005; Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright &
Patterson, 2008). For instance, 10-year-old children
raised by lesbian mothers demonstrate social com-
petence within the normal range and 81% relate well
to their peers (Gartrell et al., 2005).
There is evidence that family process variables
(i.e., what happens within the family) are more
important in predicting social competence than
family structure (e.g., parent sexual orientation;
Goldberg, 2010). For example, adolescents with
lesbian parents and adolescents with heterosexual
parents do not differ in their self-reported quality
750
of peer relationships (Goldberg, 2010; Wainright
& Patterson, 2008). Regardless of family type,
adolescents whose parents describe closer relation-
ships with them tend to report having more friends
and higher quality peer relationships (Wainright &
Patterson, 2008).
Gender-Typed Behavior
Because children who grow up in LG parent families
from birth typically lack a male and female live-
in parent, respectively, attention has been paid to
whether these children show gender-typed behav-
iors that differ from those of children with different-
sex parents (see Goldberg, 2010). In one of the few
studies to include LG and heterosexual parents,
Farr and colleagues (2010b) examined the gender-
typed play behavior of preschool-age adopted chil-
dren and found no differences in gender-typed play
behavior by family structure (i.e., lesbian-, gay-,
and heterosexual-parent status). Similar findings
were documented by Golombok et al. (2003), who
studied school-age children in lesbian mother and
heterosexual mother families. However, a study
of preschool-age adopted children with LG and
heterosexual parents found that the play behavior
of children in LG parent families was less gender-
stereotyped than the play behavior of children
in heterosexual-parent families, according to
parent reports, and the sons of lesbian mothers
were less masculine in their play behavior than
were sons of gay fathers and sons of heterosexual
parents (Goldberg, Kashy, & Smith, 2012). Indeed,
LG parents—perhaps because of their own gender
flexibility and more liberal attitudes toward gender
(see Sutfin, Fulcher, Bowles, & Patterson, 2008)—
may be more likely to facilitate their children’s
cross-gendered play by creating an environment
where such behaviors are not punished and may
be encouraged.
Not only do sexual minority parents tend to
demonstrate less gender-stereotyped attitudes and
be more accepting of gender-atypical behavior in
their children, they also possess a heightened aware-
ness of gender accountability, such that they recog-
nize societal pressures to accomplish their children’s
gender socialization (Berkowitz & Ryan, 2011).
They may manage such gender accountability by

seeking out gender role models for their children
(e.g., brothers, friends), thereby helping to deflect
concerns that two women cannot successfully raise a
son and two men cannot successfully raise a daugh-
ter (Berkowitz & Ryan, 2011; Goldberg, 2012).
Or, they may resist such pressures, emphasizing to
themselves and others that more important to chil-
dren’s development than parent gender is parenting
quality (Goldberg, 2012). Research on adolescents
raised from birth by lesbian mothers has found that
youth with male role models were similar in psycho-
logical adjustment to those without male role models
(Bos, Goldberg, van Gelderen, & Gartrell, 2012),
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
suggesting that the presence or absence of male or
female role models is not a central factor shaping
child well-being in same-sex parent families.
Research on trans parents and their children’s
gender development is sparse, but a few studies have
found that trans parents may encourage their children
to resist normative gender rules and to be more gen-
der “creative” (Pyne, 2012; Ryan, 2009). In a study of
19 children of trans parents, only one was found to
have concerns about their own gender identity, sug-
gesting that trans parents do not typically raise trans
children (Freedman, Tasker, & Di Ceglie, 2002).
Sexuality and Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation also has been a focal outcome of
interest in studies of children with sexual minority
parents (Goldberg, 2010). The research shows that
children of sexual minority parents do not self-
identify as exclusively LG at significantly higher
rates than do children of heterosexual parents
(Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Tasker &
Golombok, 1997). A study of young adults with
lesbian mothers and young adults with heterosexual
single mothers found no significant differences
between the two groups in rates of same-sex sexual
attraction, and the large majority of youth with les-
bian mothers identified as heterosexual (Tasker &
Golombok, 1997). Yet, a greater number of youth
with lesbian mothers said they had thought about the
future possibility of having a same-sex relationship;
they also were more likely to have had a same-sex
relationship. Daughters of lesbian mothers had more
sexual partners in young adulthood than did daugh-
ters of heterosexual mothers, and sons of lesbian
LGBTQ Parent Families
mothers had fewer partners than did sons of hetero-
sexual mothers (Tasker & Golombok, 1997). Thus,
children of lesbian mothers were more likely to chal-
lenge, as opposed to conform to, gender norms.
Gartrell, Bos, and Goldberg (2012), however,
compared a sample of adolescents with lesbian
mothers with a sample of age- and gender-matched
adolescents with heterosexual parents, and they
found that youth with lesbian mothers were no more
likely than their peers in heterosexual-parent house-
holds to have had same-sex sexual contact. Among
those in lesbian-parent households, nearly one in
five adolescent girls identified as bisexual, and none
identified as lesbian; fewer than one in 10 boys iden-
tified as gay or bisexual (Gartrell, Bos, & Goldberg,
2011). Thus, adolescents with lesbian mothers may
demonstrate more expansive notions of sexuality—
possibly because of the explicit teachings imparted
by their parents (Cohen & Kuvalanka, 2011).
Teasing and Bullying
Children with sexual minority parents may be socially
skilled and have high-quality relationships with
friends, but at the same time they may be bullied due
to their parents’ sexual orientation (see Volume 2,
Chapter 30, this handbook, for general research on
bullying). Studies that compare the teasing bullying
experiences of children with LG parents with those
of children with heterosexual parents are conflicting,
with some suggesting higher rates of being bullied
among the former group (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008)
and others finding no differences (Rivers et al.,
2008). Even if rates of teasing do not differ, what
children are teased about might differ for children
of sexual minority versus heterosexual parents.
Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, and Brewaeys
(2002) compared school-age children from planned
lesbian-mother households with children from
heterosexual-parent families and found no differences
in overall rates of teasing between the two groups.
Clothing, physical appearance, and intelligence were
among the reported reasons for teasing in both groups,
but family-related reasons for teasing were mentioned
only by children from lesbian-mother families: One
quarter of the children of lesbian mothers had been
teased about having two mothers, having a lesbian
mother, not having a father, or being gay.
751
 Goldberg and Sweeney
There are no studies on the prevalence of bullying
among children of trans parents, although qualita-
tive research suggests that some children are bullied
by peers for having a trans parent (Veldorale-Griffin,
2014). There is also evidence that some families
choose to closet the trans parent’s identity in some
spaces (e.g., at school) to prevent children from expe-
riencing transphobia (Haines et al., 2014; Pyne, 2012).
Children with LGB parents may be particularly
likely to experience teasing at certain developmental
stages (Gartrell et al., 2000, 2005; Kuvalanka, Leslie,
& Radina, 2014). Namely, while teasing and discrim-
ination related to their parents’ sexual orientation
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
is rare among preschoolers (Gartrell et al., 2000),
such experiences become more common when chil-
dren enter formal schooling, particularly middle
school (Gartrell et al., 2005; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).
Interestingly, some work shows that by young adult-
hood, some individuals with LGB parents find that,
rather than being a source of stigma, their parents’
sexuality is met with positive reactions (e.g., peers
think it is “cool” that they have lesbian moms or gay
dads; Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing,
2012). Individuals typically attribute these more
accepting attitudes to their peers’ increasing matu-
rity and decreasing heteronormativity (Kuvalanka
et al., 2014). Children with LGB parents who do not
encounter peer discrimination sometimes attribute
the absence of teasing to the community in which
they reside and the type of school they attend (e.g.,
private schools; Power et al., 2014). Middle- and
upper-class LGB parents may be at an advantage
in protecting their children from bullying, as they
are more able to choose places to live that are safe
from sexuality-related discrimination and to choose
schools where harassment related to their family
structure is less likely to occur (Kosciw & Diaz,
2008). Further, middle- and upper-class LGB people
may be more comfortable confronting bullying inci-
dents with their children’s teachers when they occur,
whereas working-class LGB parents may balk at such
confrontations due to their own poor academic histo-
ries and insecurity in the school sphere (Nixon, 2011).
Some work has highlighted the negative conse-
quences of peer mistreatment for the emotional and
academic outcomes of children with LGB parents.
Perceived stigmatization by peers has been linked to
752
higher rates of absenteeism at school (due to lower
perceived safety; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008) and poor
mental health in children of LG parents (Gartrell
et al., 2005). And yet, although perceived stigma-
tization and homophobia by peers had a negative
impact on children’s well-being overall, attending
schools with LGBTQ curricula and having strong
parent–child relationships buffered the negative
impact of stigma on well-being (Bos & Gartrell,
2010). Thus, both family processes and the broader
school context may have important implications for
children’s adjustment, even offsetting the negative
impact of peer stigmatization.
LGBTQ PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS
Studies comparing two-parent LG families with
heterosexual-parent families have found more
similarities than differences. LG- and heterosexual-
parent families are largely similar in the domains of
parental warmth, emotional involvement, and qual-
ity of relationships with their children (Golombok
et al., 2003), although one study did find that gay
fathers showed higher levels of warmth and respon-
siveness than did heterosexual parents (but not
lesbian mothers; Golombok et al., 2014). Further,
studies of lesbian-mother families formed via donor
insemination indicate that children’s relationships
with biological mothers appear similar in quality to
their relationships with nonbiological mothers, which
researchers attribute in part to the fact that lesbian
mothers tend to share coparenting more equally than
do heterosexual parents (see Goldberg, 2010).
Several studies have examined the consequences
of sexual minority parents’ relationship dissolution
for parent–child relationships; these studies have
found that parent–child closeness and contact may
be threatened when parents break up. For example,
Gartrell, Bos, Peyser, Deck, and Rodas (2012) found
that by the time the children in their sample of
73 intentional lesbian-mother households were
17 years old, 55% of the parents in the sample had
dissolved their unions. In families in which the
nonbiological mothers had adopted the children,
custody was more likely to be shared, and a higher
percentage of adolescents reported being close to
both mothers. Similarly, qualitative research with

young adults who experienced their LGB parents’
relationship dissolution revealed that most nonbio-
logical mothers had no legally protected relation-
ship to the participants; in turn, some nonbiological
mothers moved away or became less involved in
participants’ lives following relationship dissolution
(Goldberg & Allen, 2013b). Participants sometimes
wondered whether they might have enjoyed a closer
relationship with their noncustodial parents if their
parents had been legally married, in that a judge
would have ordered their parents to stay geographi-
cally close. These findings illustrate the potentially
powerful role of legal parentage in maintaining parent–
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
child relationships postrelationship dissolution.
Similar to how same-sex relationship dissolution
may have implications for parent–child relationship
quality, parents who undergo gender transition often
face family conflict (Freedman, Tasker, & Di Ceglie,
2002) and relationship dissolution, which can lead
to parental estrangement (Grant et al., 2011; Green,
1998; Haines et al., 2014). A parent’s transgender sta-
tus may be used against them in custody cases, lead-
ing to further distancing from children (Flynn, 2006).
CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES
ON LGBTQ FAMILIES
According to systems frameworks, a deeper under-
standing of families is gained from attending to
intrapersonal factors; interpersonal dynamics in
the family; and the family’s interactions with social,
political, and economic contexts (Bronfenbrenner,
1986; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). A variety of
social systems external to the family affect the forma-
tion and dynamics of LGBTQ families. These systems
include the legal system, health care, and the media.
Legal System
LGBTQ parents face a number of obstacles to fam-
ily formation due to social homophobia. Legal
barriers can make family formation more difficult
and can lead to a lack of protections for LGBTQ
families (Goldberg, 2012). In this regard, the legal
Examples of such rights include easier access to health insurance coverage for both partners, protections from separation for binational families, the right
4
to public housing as a couple, automatic joint parenting and adoption, medical leave and hospital visitation when a spouse is ill, access to social secu-
rity and autonomic inheritance of major assets in the event of the death of a spouse, and automatic visitation and child support rights in the event of
parental separation (Wolfson, 2005).
LGBTQ Parent Families
landscape is changing rapidly; on June 26, 2015, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize
same-sex marriages. Although marriage is indeed
viewed by some LGBTQ people as a heterosexist
institution they prefer to avoid (Goldberg, 2012),
the rights enshrined in marriage are far from trivial
for families. Marriage provides more than 1,000
rights4 and can therefore provide a sense of security
for parents and children. Lacking these rights can
create stress for families and also may be costly, as
parents seek to secure such rights through other
means (Goldberg, 2012).
Beyond marriage, legal discrimination continues
in many other domains, from employment to housing
to attending church. For example, there is no federal
law protecting LGBTQ individuals from employment
discrimination, and in many states and jurisdictions it
is legal for employers to harass, deny promotions to,
refuse to hire, and fire LGBTQ workers (Hunt, 2012).
Between 15% and 43% of LGB people, and 50% to
90% of trans people, report workplace discrimina-
tion (Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007; Grant et al.,
2011). As families increasingly rely on the income
of both parents to make ends meet (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2010), the loss of a job can cause disrup-
tions in family functioning (Paul & Moser, 2009).
Health Care
Although progress has been made, assumptions of
heterosexuality as the norm are still pervasive in the
medical field (Chapman, Watkins, Zappia, Combs,
& Shields, 2012), and some medical professionals
are explicitly rejecting of LGBTQ parent families.
Whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics came
out in support of second-parent adoption rights
for LGB parents in 2002, and of same-sex marriage
in 2013 (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013),
other groups—such as the American College of
Pediatricians (2013)—oppose same-sex parenting.
Homophobia and transphobia within the health
care system can be a source of stress for LGBTQ par-
ent families (Chapman, Watkins, et al., 2012), and
minority LGBTQ people may experience increased
753
 Goldberg and Sweeney
stress as they are vulnerable to heterosexism and
racism by providers (Grant et al., 2011).
Media
LGBTQ-parent families raise children in a social
context that reinforces heterosexism and the gen-
der binary. The media in particular play a strong
role in shaping children’s ideas about gender roles
and sexuality (American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Public Education, 2001): From tele-
vision shows to movies, specific stereotypes about
men and women are portrayed that reinforce views
of the nuclear family, masculinity, and femininity.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Although there has been an increase in LG charac-
ters on adult television, and even a few LG-focused
television shows (e.g., The L Word, Will & Grace),
the media for children continue to exclude LGBTQ
individuals. For instance, Disney has never pro-
duced a children’s movie with an openly gay charac-
ter, and there are only a handful of children’s books
that include lesbian and gay characters, much less
bisexual and transgender ones. LGBTQ parents are
often going against the grain, trying to socialize their
children to understand that their family is normal
and acceptable within a media context that renders
LGBTQ families invisible.
AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015,
future research questions may relate to how gaining
federal marriage equality affects families, especially
with regard to relationship commitment, divorce,
social recognition of married same-sex parents, and
the effects of marriage on trans-parent families and
binational same-sex-parent families. For instance,
future work can build on the recent finding that
getting married can affirm commitment and pro-
vide an increased sense of legitimacy for same-sex
couples (Haas & Whitton, 2015).
Although rural areas have fewer resources for
LGBTQ people in comparison with urban areas
(Power et al., 2014), LGBTQ people who live in rural
areas value many aspects of rural life, including a
good quality of life and close relationships (Oswald
& Culton, 2003). More work should assess the
effects of geography on the experiences of LGBTQ
754
parent families (e.g., experiences of homophobia and
transphobia, availability of resources for parents).
While a body of research suggests that the experi-
ence of minority LGBTQ people differs from that of
White LGBTQ persons (Grant et al., 2011) due to
the intersection of multiple minority stressors (e.g.,
racism and heterosexism; Moore, 2008), more work
is needed to understand the experiences of minority
LGBTQ families, binational LGBTQ families, and
LGBTQ immigrant families. Also, as the experiences
of families in general vary dramatically depending
on socioeconomic status (Conger, Conger, & Martin,
2010), more work is needed to better understand
how social class intersects with LGBTQ family iden-
tity. In this chapter, we reviewed the role of the legal
system, health care, and the media, yet research is
needed on other systems that intersect with LGBTQ
families (e.g., military, prisons).
As reiterated throughout the chapter, trans and
bisexual parenting represent understudied areas.
Trans parent family formation, medical concerns
related to having biological children after undergo-
ing hormonal and surgical gender transition, and
intimate relationship quality in couples where one
or both members identifies as trans represent areas
for future work. Research on how bisexual parents’
experiences vary as a function of partner gender, and
across the life course, is also needed. Also, research
is needed to understand how trans and bisexual
identities intersect with gender, socioeconomic
status, racial or ethnic identity, and disability status.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS
IN FAMILY AND COUPLE PSYCHOLOGY
We offer these recommendations to practitioners
who work with LGBTQ-parent families:
■■ During the family-building stage, support
LGBTQ people and couples in considering the
range of options available to them, discuss how
to manage stigma from various systems should
it occur, and empower LGBTQ people to make
informed choices that will increase the likelihood
of sensitive treatment by providers.
■■ During the transition to parenthood, normalize
changes in well-being and relationship quality and

support same-sex couples in engaging in activi-
ties and seeking support from sources that will
maximize the chances of relational happiness,
especially in the context of stressors such as dif-
ficult child characteristics, family nonsupport, and
extrafamilial stressors. In treating trans people
during the transition to parenthood, use gender-
affirming language and provide thorough infor-
mation regarding fertility options for trans people
considering parenthood.
■■ In treating LGBTQ people and couples with chil-
dren, consider the variety of contextual influences
that shape their well-being (e.g., schools, health
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
care, the legal system), anticipate stressors in these
various systems, and support families in accessing
support within generally unsupportive contexts (or
in seeking support from other contexts to mitigate
the negative effects of nonsupportive systems).
■■ In treating LGBTQ couples who are experiencing
disharmony in their relationships, support them
in making relationship decisions that will decrease
the chances of disruption to children. Recognize
that the dissolution of same-sex parents’ relation-
ships may be especially challenging for children,
who may encounter stigma due to having LGBTQ
parents as well as parents who are divorced.
■■ In general, seek to (a) challenge heteronor­
mative structures and dominant stereotypes
inside and outside the therapy room; (b) name
hetero­normative influences when relevant; and
(c) empower clients to advocate for themselves
against discrimination.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). American
Academy of Pediatrics supports same gender civil
marriage. Retrieved from https://www.aap.org/en-us/
about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-
Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-Same-Gender-
Civil-Marriage.aspx
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public
Education. (2001). Sexuality, contraception, and the
media. Pediatrics, 107, 191–194. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1542/peds.107.1.191
American College of Pediatricians. (2013). Homosexual
parenting: Is it time for change? Retrieved from
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-
statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-
is-it-time-for-change
LGBTQ Parent Families
Arnett, J. J., & Tanner, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Emerging
adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Badgett, L., Lau, L., Sears, B., & Ho, C. (2007). Bias in the
workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation
and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles, CA:
Williams Institute.
Bailey, J. M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995).
Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 124–129. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.124
Benson, A. L., Silverstein, L. B., & Auerbach, C. F.
(2005). From the margins to the center: Gay fathers
reconstruct the fathering role. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 1, 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J461v01n03_01
Bergman, K., Rubio, R. J., Green, R.-J., & Padron, E.
(2010). Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy:
The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family
Studies, 6, 111–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15504281003704942
Berkowitz, D. (2013). Gay men and surrogacy. In A. E.
Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families:
Innovations in research and implications for practice
(pp. 71–85). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_5
Berkowitz, D., & Ryan, S. (2011). Bathrooms, base-
ball, and bra shopping: Lesbian and gay parents
talk about engendering their children. Sociological
Perspectives, 54, 329–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/
sop.2011.54.3.329
Bos, H., & Gartrell, N. (2010). Adolescents of the USA
National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Can
family characteristics counteract the negative effects
of stigmatization? Family Process, 49, 559–572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01340.x
Bos, H., van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. (2015). Lesbian
and heterosexual two-parent families: Adolescent–
parent relationship quality and adolescent well-being.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1031–1046.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9913-8
Bos, H. M. W. (2010). Planned gay father families in
kinship arrangements. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 356–371. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1375/anft.31.4.356
Bos, H. M. W., Goldberg, N., van Gelderen, L., &
Gartrell, N. (2012). Adolescents of the U.S. National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Male role mod-
els, gender role traits, and psychological adjustment.
Gender & Society, 26, 603–638. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0891243212445465
Brodzinsky, D. (2003). Adoption by lesbians and gays:
A national survey of adoption agency policies, practices,
and attitudes. New York, NY: Evan B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute.
755
 Goldberg and Sweeney
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a
context for human development: Research perspec-
tives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Employment charac-
teristics of families—2010. Retrieved from http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm
Buxton, A. P. (2005). A family matter: When a spouse
comes out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 1, 49–70. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J461v01n02_04
Buxton, A. P. (2006). When a spouse comes out: Impact
on the heterosexual partner. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity, 13, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10720160600897599
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Cacciatore, J., & Raffo, Z. (2011). An exploration of
lesbian maternal bereavement. Social Work, 56,
169–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/56.2.169
Chapman, R., Watkins, R., Zappia, T., Combs, S., &
Shields, L. (2012). Second-level hospital health
professionals’ attitudes to lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender parents seeking health for their children.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 880–887. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03938.x
Cohen, R., & Kuvalanka, K. A. (2011). Sexual social-
ization in lesbian-parent families: An exploratory
analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
81, 293–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1939-0025.2011.01098.x
Coleman, E. (1990). The married lesbian. In F. W. Bozett
& M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Homosexuality and family
relations (pp. 119–135). New York, NY: Harrington
Park Press.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010).
Socioeconomic status, family processes, and
individual development. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, 685–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x
DeMino, K. A., Appleby, G., & Fisk, D. (2007). Lesbian
mothers with planned families: A comparative study
of internalized homophobia and social support.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 165–173.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.1.165
Downing, J. B. (2013). Transgender-parent families. In
A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent
families: Innovations in research and implications for
practice (pp. 105–115). New York, NY: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_7
Downing, J. B., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Lesbian
mothers’ constructions of the division of paid and
unpaid labor. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 100–120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353510375869
Ellis, S. A., Wojnar, D. M., & Pettinato, M. (2015).
Conception, pregnancy, and birth experiences of
756
male and gender variant gestational parents: It’s
how we could have a family. Journal of Midwifery
& Women’s Health, 60, 62–69. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/jmwh.12213
Erera, P., & Segal-Engelchin, D. (2014). Gay men choos-
ing to co-parent with heterosexual women. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 10, 449–474. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1550428X.2013.858611
Erhartdt, V. (2006). Head over heels: Wives who stay with
cross-dressers and transsexuals. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Press.
Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010a).
Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents:
Couple and relationship issues. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 6, 199–213. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15504281003705436
Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010b).
Parenting and child development in adoptive
families: Does parental sexual orientation matter?
Applied Developmental Science, 14, 164–178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2010.500958
Flynn, T. (2006). The ties that (don’t) bind: Transgender
family law and the unmaking of families. In P. Currah,
R. Juang, & S. Minter (Eds.), Transgender rights
(pp. 32–50). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H. J., Barkan, S. E.,
Balsam, K. F., & Mincer, S. L. (2010). Disparities in
health-related quality of life: A comparison of lesbi-
ans and bisexual women. American Journal of Public
Health, 100, 2255–2261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2009.177329
Freedman, D., Tasker, F., & Di Ceglie, D. (2002).
Children and adolescents with transsexual
parents referred to a specialist gender identity
development service: A brief report of key devel­
opmental features. Clinical Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 7, 423–432. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1177/1359104502007003009
Gabb, J. (2005). Lesbian M/Otherhood: Strategies of
familial-linguistic management in lesbian parent
families. Sociology, 39, 585–603. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0038038505056025
Gamarel, K. E., Reisner, S. L., Laurenceau, J.-P., Nemoto, T.,
& Operario, D. (2014). Gender minority stress, men-
tal health, and relationship quality: A dyadic investiga-
tion of transgender women and their cisgender male
partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 437–447.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037171
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H.,
& Rodas, C. (1999). The National Lesbian Family
Study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 362–369.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0080410

Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamilton, J., Rodas, C.,
& Deck, A. (2000). The National Lesbian Family
Study: 3. Interviews with mothers of five-year-olds.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 542–548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087823
Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., &
Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with lesbian mothers
describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality,
59, 1211–1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00918369.2012.720499
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A.
(2005). The National Lesbian Family Study: 4.
Interviews with the 10-year-old children. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.518
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Gartrell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2011).
Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal
Lesbian Family Study: Sexual orientation, sexual
behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 1199–1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-010-9692-2
Gartrell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2012).
New trends in same-sex sexual contact for American
adolescents? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 5–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9883-5
Gates, G. (2011). Family formation and raising children
among same-sex couples. NCFR Report, Issue FF51,
F1–F4. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.
ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-NCFR-
LGBT-Families-December-2011.pdf
Gates, G. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States.
Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/
wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual family
psychology: A systemic, life cycle perspective. In
M. Stanton & J. Bray (Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell hand-
book of family psychology (pp. 576–587). Oxford,
England: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
9781444310238.ch40
Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and
their children: Research on the family life cycle.
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12055-000
Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Gay dads: Transitions to adoptive
fatherhood. New York, NY: NYU Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.18574/nyu/9780814732236.001.0001
Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Lesbian, gay, and hetero­sexual
adoptive parents’ experiences in preschool
environments. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 29, 669–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecresq.2014.07.008
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013a). Donor, dad,
or . . .? Young adults with lesbian parents’ experi-
ences with known donors. Family Process, 52,
338–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12029
LGBTQ Parent Families
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013b). Same-sex rela-
tionship dissolution and LGB stepfamily formation:
Perspectives of young adults with LGB parents. Family
Relations, 62, 529–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
fare.12024
Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., & Richardson, H. B. (2009).
The transition from infertility to adoption: Perceptions
of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 26, 938–963. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407509345652
Goldberg, A. E., & Garcia, R. (2015). Predictors of rela-
tionship dissolution in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual
adoptive parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 29,
394–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000095
Goldberg, A. E., & Gartrell, N. (2014). Children with
LGBT parents: Research trends, emerging issues,
and future directions. In J. Benson (Ed.), Advances
in child development and behavior (pp. 57–88).
San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Goldberg, A. E., Kashy, D. A., & Smith, J. Z. (2012).
Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood:
Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual
parents. Sex Roles, 67, 503–515. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-012-0198-3
Goldberg, A. E., Kinkler, L. A., Richardson, H. B., &
Downing, J. B. (2012). On the border: Young adults
with LGBQ parents navigate LGBTQ communities.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 71–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024576
Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., Black, K., & Henry, A.
(2015). Lesbian and heterosexual adoptive mothers’
experiences of relationship dissolution. Sex Roles,
73, 141–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-014-0432-2
Goldberg, A. E., Moyer, A. M., Kinkler, L. A., & Richardson,
H. B. (2012). “When you’re sitting on the fence, hope’s
the hardest part”: Challenges and experiences of hetero­
sexual and same-sex couples adopting through the
child welfare system. Adoption Quarterly, 15, 1–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2012.731032
Goldberg, A. E., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2007). The division
of labor and perceptions of parental roles: Lesbian
couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 297–318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407507075415
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2008). The social context
of lesbian mothers’ anxiety during early parenthood.
Parenting: Science and Practice, 8, 213–239. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295190802204801
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009). Perceived parent-
ing skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood
among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. Journal
of Family Psychology, 23, 861–870. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0017009
757
 Goldberg and Sweeney
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social
context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay cou-
ples across the transition to adoptive parenthood.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021684
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013a). Predictors of
psychological adjustment in early placed adopted
children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents.
Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 431–442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032911
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013b). Work conditions
and mental health in lesbian and gay dual-earner
parents. Family Relations, 62, 727–740. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/fare.12042
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2014). Predictors of
school engagement among same-sex and hetero­
sexual adoptive parents of kindergarteners. Journal
of School Psychology, 52, 463–478. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsp.2014.08.001
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Kashy, D. A. (2010).
Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the
transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family
Psychology, 24, 221–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019615
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012).
The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and hetero-
sexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 74, 812–828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2012.00992.x
Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P.,
Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). Adoptive gay
father families: Parent–child relationships
and children’s psychological adjustment. Child
Development, 85, 456–468. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/cdev.12155
Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-
Somers, J., Stevens, M., & Golding, J. (2003).
Children with lesbian parents: A community study.
Developmental Psychology, 39, 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.20
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., & Tanis, J. (with Harrison, J.,
Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M.). (2011). Injustice
at every turn: A report of the national transgender
discrimination survey, executive summary. Retrieved
from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/
reports/ntds_summary.pdf
Green, R. (1998). Transsexuals’ children. International
Journal of Transgenderism, 2(4).
Haas, S. M., & Whitton, S. W. (2015). The significance
of living together and importance of marriage in
same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 62,
1241–1263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.
2015.1037137
758
Haines, B. A., Ajayi, A. A., & Boyd, H. (2014). Making trans
parents visible: Intersectionality of trans and parent-
ing identities. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 238–247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353514526219
Human Rights Campaign. (2014). Parenting laws: Second
parent or stepparent adoption. Retrieved from https://
www.hrc.org/resources/second-parent-adoption
Hunt, J. (2012). A state-by-state examination of non-
discrimination laws and policies. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogressaction.org
James-Abra, S., Tarasoff, L. A., Green, D., Epstein, R.,
Anderson, S., Marvel, S., . . . Ross, L. E. (2015).
Trans people’s experiences with assisted repro-
duction services: A qualitative study. Human
Reproduction, 30, 1365–1374. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/humrep/dev087
Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible,
ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender parents and their children in our nation’s
K-12 schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Kuvalanka, K., Leslie, L., & Radina, R. (2014). Coping
with sexual stigma: Emerging adults with lesbian
parents reflect on the impact of heterosexism and
homophobia during their adolescence. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 29, 241–270. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0743558413484354
Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2012).
Can gay and lesbian parents promote healthy
development in high-risk children adopted from
foster care? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82,
465–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.
2012.01176.x
Lavner, J. A., Waterman, J., & Peplau, L. A. (2014).
Parent adjustment over time in gay, lesbian, and
heterosexual parent families adopting from foster
care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 46–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0098853
Light, A. D., Obedin-Maliver, J., Sevelius, J. M., & Kerns,
J. L. (2014). Transgender men who experienced
pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning.
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 124, 1120–1127. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540
Lynch, J. M. (2004). Becoming a stepparent in gay/lesbian
stepfamilies: Integrating identities. Journal of Homo­
sexuality, 48, 45–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J082v48n02_03
Lynch, J. M., & Murray, K. (2000). For the love of
the children: The coming out process for lesbian
and gay parents and stepparents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 39, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J082v39n01_01
Moore, M. R. (2008). Gendered power relations
among women: A study of household decision
making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American

Sociological Review, 73, 335–356. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/000312240807300208
Nixon, C. A. (2011). Working-class lesbian parents’
emotional engagement with their children’s educa-
tion: Intersections of class and sexuality. Sexualities,
141, 78–99.
Nordqvist, P. (2015). “I’ve redeemed myself by being a
1950s ‘housewife’”: Parent–grandparent relationships
in the context of lesbian childbirth. Journal of Family
Issues, 36, 480–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0192513X14563798
Oswald, R. F., & Culton, L. S. (2003). Under the rainbow:
Rural gay life and its relevance for family providers.
Family Relations, 52, 72–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3729.2003.00072.x
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Patterson, C. J., Sutfin, E. L., & Fulcher, M. (2004). Division
of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parenting cou-
ples: Correlates of specialized versus shared patterns.
Journal of Adult Development, 11, 179–189. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000035626.90331.47
Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs
mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74, 264–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.01.001
Pearcey, M. (2005). Gay and bisexual married men’s
attitudes and experiences: Homophobia, reasons
for marriage, and self-identity. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 1, 21–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J461v01n04_02
Peel, E. (2010). Pregnancy loss in lesbian and bisexual
women: An online survey of experiences. Human
Reproduction, 25, 721–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
humrep/dep441
Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans:
Attitudes, experiences and values in changing times.
Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/
files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf
Pfeffer, C. A. (2010). “Women’s work”? Women partners
of transgender men doing housework and emotion
work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 165–183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00690.x
Potter, D. (2012). Same-sex parent families and chil-
dren’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 74, 556–571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x
Power, J., Brown, R., Schofield, M. J., Pitts, M., McNair, R.,
Perlesz, A., & Bickerdike, A. (2014). Social con-
nectedness among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender parents living in metropolitan and regional
and rural areas of Australia and New Zealand.
Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 869–889.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21658
Power, J., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., Schofield, M., Pitts, M.,
McNair, R., & Bickerdike, A. (2012). Bisexual parents
LGBTQ Parent Families
and family diversity: Findings from the Work, Love,
Play Study. Journal of Bisexuality, 12, 519–538.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2012.729432
Pyne, J. (2012). Transforming family: The struggles, strate-
gies and strengths of trans parents. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/7252776/Transforming_
Family_Trans_Parents_and_their_Struggles_
Strategies_and_Strengths
Pyne, J., Bauer, G., & Bradley, K. (2015). Transphobia and
other stressors impacting trans parents. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 11, 107–126. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1550428X.2014.941127
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., & Noret, N. (2008). Victimization,
social support, and psychosocial functioning among
children of same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the
United Kingdom. Developmental Psychology, 44,
127–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.44.1.127
Robitaille, C., & Saint-Jacques, M. C. (2009). Social stigma
and the situation of young people in lesbian and gay
stepfamilies. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 421–442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918360902821429
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). Nontraditional families and
childhood progress through school. Demography, 47,
755–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0112
Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C. (2013). Where is the “B” in
LGBT parenting? A call for research on bisexual par-
enting. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-
parent families: Innovations in research and implications
for practice (pp. 87–103). New York, NY: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_6
Ross, L. E., Siegel, A., Dobinson, C., Epstein, R., & Steele,
L. S. (2012). “I don’t want to turn totally invisible”:
Mental health stressors and supports among bisexual
women during the perinatal period. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 8, 137–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1550428X.2012.660791
Ryan, M. (2009). Beyond Thomas Beatie: Trans men and the
new parenthood. In R. Epstein (Ed.), Who’s your daddy?
And other writings on queer parenting (pp. 139–150).
Toronto, Canada: Sumach Press.
Sasnett, S. (2015). Are the kids all right? A qualitative
study of adults with gay and lesbian parents. Journal
of Contemporary Ethnography, 44, 196–222. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241614540212
Shechner, T., Slone, M., Lobel, T. E., & Shechter, R. (2013).
Children’s adjustment in non-traditional families in
Israel: The effect of parental sexual orientation and the
number of parents on children’s development. Child:
Care, Health and Development, 39, 178–184. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01337.x
Sutfin, E. L., Fulcher, M., Bowles, R. P., & Patterson, C. J.
(2008). How lesbian and heterosexual parents con-
vey attitudes about gender to their children: The role
759
 Goldberg and Sweeney
of gendered environments. Sex Roles, 58, 501–513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9368-0
Tasker, F. L. (2013). Lesbian and gay parenting post-
heterosexual divorce and separation. In A. E.
Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families:
Innovations in research and implications for practice
(pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_1
Tasker, F. L., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a
lesbian family: Effects on child development. London,
England: Guilford Press.
Tate, C. C., Youssef, C. P., & Bettergarcia, J. N. (2014).
Integrating the study of transgender spectrum
and cisgender experiences of self-categorization
from a personality perspective. Review of General
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Psychology, 18, 302–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
gpr0000019
Titlestad, A., & Pooley, J. A. (2014). Resilience in same-
sex-parented families: The lived experience of adults
with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, 10, 329–353. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1550428X.2013.833065
Turner, P. H., Scadden, L., & Harris, M. B. (1990).
Parenting in gay and lesbian families. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1, 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J236v01n03_04
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A.
(2002). What does it mean for youngsters to grow
up in a lesbian family created by means of donor
insemination? Journal of Reproductive and Infant
760
Psychology, 20, 237–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0264683021000033165
van Gelderen, L., Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N., Hermanns, J.,
& Perrin, E. C. (2012). Quality of life of adolescents
raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National
Longitudinal Family Study. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, 33, 17–23. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/DBP.0b013e31823b62af
Veldorale-Griffin, A. (2014). Transgender parents and their
adult children’s experiences of disclosure and transi-
tion. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 475–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2013.866063
Wainright, J. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Peer relations
among adolescents with female same-sex parents.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 117–126. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.117
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993).
Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty,
R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods:
A contextual approach (pp. 325–355). New York,
NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-0-387-85764-0_14
White, T., & Ettner, R. (2007). Adaptation and adjust-
ment in children of transsexual parents. European
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 215–221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-006-0591-y
Wolfson, E. (2005). Why marriage matters: America,
equality, and gay people’s right to marry. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.