Content uploaded by Andreja Hočevar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreja Hočevar on Jul 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
articles 83
Andreja Hočevar1
Department of Educational Sciences
Faculty of Arts
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Recevied: July 2013
Accepted: March 2014
UDK 305 : 173-055.3-053.2
DOI 10.3935/ljsr.v21i1.8
Key words:
pluralisation of family forms,
rainbow family, children well-being,
stigmatization.
CHILDREN IN RAINBOW
FAMILIES
SUMMARY
This article discusses rainbow families, families
formed by one or two same-sex attracted persons rais-
ing a child or children. It examines the ndings of dif-
ferent research studies undertaken internationally
(primarily in the USA and Western Europe) focusing on
whether children growing up in rainbow families dif-
fer from children growing up in other family forms. The
research ndings demonstrate that there are no statis-
tically signicant dierences between children being
raised by rainbow families and other family forms with
regard to the formation of gender identity, gender roles,
emotional and cognitive development, or psychological
and behavioural adjustments. However, the health and
well-being of children growing up in rainbow families
does depend on the (fear of) stigmatization and discrim-
ination against these children in society.
1 Assistant prefessor Andreja Hočevar PhD, pedagogue,
e-mail: andreja.hocevar@fs.uni-lj-si
84 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
INTRODUCTION
Through its examination of social reality, the scientic community has been
observing the pluralisation of family forms for quite some time now (Sieder, 1998).
Nevertheless, there are some individuals and social groups who do not recognize
this plurality’s right to existence. The concept of the rainbow family (German Re-
genboden familien, Slovenian mavrične družine, Croatian dugine obitelji) has be-
come established internationally to identify families where the parents are not het-
erosexual (Zaviršek & Sobočan, 2012). The Australian materials intended for pre-
school teachers entitled “Introducing rainbow families: a guide for early childhood
services” (2010) contains the following denition of rainbow families: “…there are
increasing numbers of children who come from families with same-sex parents –
sometimes called ‘rainbow families’. Rainbow families … come in dierent shapes
and sizes. Children may have two mums or dads, or any combination of parents or
co-parents caring for the children. It is also important to remember that some sole
parents are lesbian, gay or bisexual. Some rainbow families may include known
donors or surrogates in their extended families, and some are created through fos-
tering. Rainbow families are as diverse – in socio-economic background, disability,
language, culture and religion – as all … families” (ibid.: 1).
Rainbow families are, therefore, the same as all families.However, these famili-
es are sometimes the victims of prejudice and stereotyping related to the convic-
tion that homosexuality and bringing up children in rainbow families constitute
a social deviation from “normality” (Biblarz & Stacey, 2006). The two-parent hete-
rosexual family is promoted as the ideal type of family, the norm from which the
deviation is measured, the point from which “the Other” is identied. The position
of this family form is “… naturalized and normalized, it is the point at which a cer-
tain form turns from the natural towards the unnatural, from the normal to the
deviant” (Urek, 2005:157). In addition, “… this particular family type has repeatedly
been promoted as the ‘ideal’, and has often been depicted as the only ‘real’ family
type, in contrast to other family types that are constructed as less desirable and
less able to meet the needs of children” (Short et al., 2007: 5). Yet through the plu-
ralisation of family forms the families with two heterosexual parents have gradu-
ally, but persistently, been losing their position as the “natural” and “ideal” form of
family life (Calhoun, 1997). The phenomenon of same-sex families has changed the
social meaning of parenthood: the child’s parents donot necessarily need to be in a
heterosexual relationship (Švab, 2010). It hasalso undermined the idealized image
of children growing up in “normal” families that consist of a (biological) father and
mother, a notionthat is supported by neither scientic ndings nor the reality of
everyday life.
articles 85
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
In the last few decades the debate focusing on this “specic” family form – the
family with one or two same-sex attracted adults and a child or children, that is, the
rainbow family – has often been imbued with various value, ideological and politi-
cal charges. They centre around the question ofwhether or not same-sex attracted
people actually have the right to form a family. The answer to this question is not
irrelevant – not only because of the ethical, ideological and political implications
that it has, but also because of the legal and formal implications that give or deny
this family form (and especially the children living in it) the rights and duties which
each specic society confers on so-called “real” families. In Australia it has been ob-
served that since the late 1990s (as in some other countries, e.g. see Biblarz & Sta-
cey, 2006), “the notion that all children ‘need’ or ‘do better’ with both a mother and
a father has repeatedly been used as justication for retaining or even extending
discrimination in the area of family-related laws and policies, such as who should
have access to fertility services and who should be able to get married” (Short et
al., 2007: 5).This can also be observed in our own geographical area, Eastern Eu-
rope. Those who argue against rainbow families gaining the same rights and ha-
ving the same duties to children, against the view that the state has the duty to
ensure the potential for the realization of these rights and duties, and against the
right of rainbow families to the same treatment as other forms of family life enjoy,
e.g. families with two (social andor biological) parents and children, single-parent
families, etc., base their arguments on the assumption that only one “real” family
form exists, i.e. the family with two parents of the opposite gender who care for
children. Such a family is presumed to be the only form of family life thatcan pro-
vide children with the environment for “healthy” development – the more a family
moves away from the traditional two-parent heterosexual family, the greater the
perceived risk to the child (Golombok, 2000).
But is that really true? Are children who live in a family with two parents of the
opposite gender really less exposed to dierent risks than children who live in a
rainbow family? Are these children really “healthier” than children growing up in a
rainbow family? Are these children really less “deviant” than children growing up
in a rainbow family? This article will attempt to provide answers to these questions
by reviewing the research studies that have examined children in single- and/or
two-parent rainbow families. Using these ndings, the article will try to demon-
strate that – despite the apparentmethodological deciencies in the research stu-
dies –statements regardingthe risks that children from rainbow families supposed-
ly face, that is, statements on the supposed risks and problems children raised in
these families have to deal with, cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. Nevertheless,
debating these issues is important.Only on that basis will it be possible to establish
democratic legislation that will not exclude individuals because of their personal
86 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
circumstances, such as nationality, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, reli-
gion, and political and other convictions, and that will ensure each individual equ-
ality before the law and the protection of his or hers rights.
HOW DOES GROWING UP IN RAINBOW FAMILIES AFFECT
CHILDREN AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT?
Patricia Morgan argues against the right of homosexual individuals to form fa-
milies, writing that “… a well-established and growing body of evidence … shows
that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to
the raising of children. Children reared in traditional families by a mother and father
are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional
environments” (2002: 95). However, the author forgot that she was referring to the
data comparing children from single-parent families (usually the result of the pa-
rents’ divorce) withchildren from conventional nuclear families. Let us not dispute,
for the time being, the ndings on the happiness, health and success of children
in single-parent and traditional nuclear families or the methodology of the resear-
ch studies, but it is nevertheless important to emphasize that the authors of such
studies didnot study the eect of the parents’ sexual orientation on their children,
but rather the dierences between children living with both parents and children
living with one parent. As a consequence (while ignoring everything else), these
conclusions cannot be referred to when discussing children from rainbow families.
Among the research studies of children growing up in rainbow families we
have been unable to trace a single paperthat demonstrates empirically that the
homosexuality of one or both parents has a negative impact on their children’s
development. There are, however, dierences betweenchildren growing up in
dierent family forms, but the dierences are not statistically signicant. A rese-
arch study was carried out in Australia in which Sotirios Sarantakos (1996) compa-
red a sample of 174 children living in families formed by achild and both partners
with at least one of the parents being the child’s biological parent. He studied 58
children of married heterosexual couples, 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual
couples and 58 children living in two-parent rainbow families (47 in lesbian and 11
in gay families). The author concluded that as far as school achievement was con-
cerned the children of married heterosexual couples were the most successful. The
children from the other two family forms were less successful at school, but there
were no statistically signicant dierences among the sample groups. The children
growing up in rainbow families were more successful in social sciences, demon-
strated greater social autonomy and participated more in household chores than
articles 87
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
the children from the other two forms of family life. But these dierences were not
statistically signicant either. Based on this research study it is therefore impossible
to claim that growing up in a two-parent rainbow family has a negative inuence
on a child’s development.
Moreover, Millbank (2003) pointed out that “Someresearch suggests that
lesbian and gay families are in some respects better for children than heterosexual
families … Research on the division of parenting and household labour among
lesbian co-parents and gay-co-parents has shown a distinct pattern of equality
and sharing compared to heterosexual parents, with corresponding positive well-
being for the partner’s relationship with each other, and the child’s adjustment”
(Millbank, 2003: 546–547).Research studies show that “… gay and lesbian parents
tend to be more responsive to their children, more child oriented, and more ega-
litarian in their sharing of the workload, characteristics associated with a more
positive child outcome” (Johnson & O’Connor, 2002: 67).The study carried out by
Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell and Charlotte J. Patterson (2010) comparing ho-
mosexual and heterosexual families with adopted children showed that the proce-
sses within the family outweigh the family’s structure. The study investigated child
development and parenting in 106 families headed by 27 lesbian, 29 gay and 50
heterosexual couples (80% white, M = 42 years) with young adopted children (41%
white, M = 3 years). They used systematic methods to recruit lesbian and gay pa-
renting couples, as well as a comparison group of heterosexual parenting couples,
from many locations across the United States. All the couples had young children
who had been adopted in infancy through one of a small group of private adop-
tion agencies (ibid.: 167). Regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation the chil-
dren thrived best when growing up in families where the parents used eective
educational techniques and were satised with their partnerships. Family process
variables such as parenting stress, parenting strategies and couple relationship sa-
tisfaction were signicantly associated with the assessments of the children’s be-
havioural problems. In comparison, parental sexual orientation was unrelated to
the children’s adjustment (ibid.: 177).
This was conrmed by the ndings of a research study carried out by David
Lick, Charlotte Patterson and Karen Schmidt (2013), which included 91 adults who
grew up with at least one openly gay or lesbian parent. The subjects ranged in
age from 18 to 61 years (M = 27.6 years, SD = 7.2 years), and on average they were
7.6 years old (SD = 5.2 years) when they learned that a parent was gay or lesbian.
Most had lesbian mothers (69%) and identied themselves as heterosexual (60%)
and female (75%) (ibid.: 237). The participants responded to measures of recalled
social experiences as well as current depressive symptoms, positive and negative
eects, and life satisfaction. They reported diering social experiences, e.g. stigma,
88 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
as a function of their sex, family type, gaylesbian parent’s sex and the age at which
they learned that a parent was gay or lesbian. Despite such diverse experiences,
the participants reported no signicant dierences in long-term psychological
adjustment. Despite the fact that some of their recalled social experiences pre-
dicted psychological adjustment in the long term, most of the participants had
developed into psychologically healthy adults. In fact, the authors did not uncover
any statistically signicant dierences in overall well-being as a function of family
characteristics. They concluded that it could be the case that children of gay and
lesbian parents learn to cope with dicult social experiences, leading to positive
overall adjustment. Indeed, the sample perceived their social experiences as be-
coming signicantly more positive over the life course, with less stigma and more
benets related to their family situation() during adulthood than during earlier de-
velopmental periods (ibid.: 245–250).
The problem then does not lie in the form of family life in whichthe child
grows up, but in social environmentsthat do not recognize the right of certain fa-
mily forms to exist. Excluding some family forms supposedly justies the damage
that living in an “unrealunnaturalabnormal” form of family life is thought to have
on achild’s development. As the Australian Psychological Society(APS) maintains,
“the research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in fami-
lies parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as
those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal
discrimination and inequity remain signicant challenges for these families” (Short
et al., 2007: 25).
The impact of growing up in rainbow families on children’s
gender identity, gender roles and sexual orientation
Charlotte Patterson (2006.) highlighted the fact that the rst research studies
conducted in the late 1970s and in the 1980s on the topic of children growing up
in rainbow families included children who were born in marriage and lived with a
lesbian mother after divorce and children who, after divorce, lived with a hetero-
sexual mother. The author does not state whether both forms of the families were
single-parent or reorganized families,nor does she say what or how many studies
were conducted during the specied period.However, Patterson noted that these
studies showed that there were “… few signicant dierences” between the popu-
lations under consideration (2006: 241). The author believed that this was acon-
sequence of the fact that these children’s early childhood wasspent with theirfa-
miliesand therefore had the same pattern of important others. That this argument
articles 89
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
is not sucient is demonstrated by the studies of children who hadneither been
born nor hadever lived in heterosexual families. Such research studies were rst
undertaken in the United States of America in the 1990s. Patterson drew attenti-
on to the ndings of astudy called the “Bay Area Families Study” which examined
a group of children aged between four and nine years who had beenborn to or
adopted by single lesbian mothers. She collected data during home visits and con-
ducted interviews. The responding mothers also completed a questionnaire (ibid.).
The author didnot specify at what age the children from the sample had been
adopted or if they had lived in a form of family life or in foster care before they had
been adopted. The author didnot state the number of children who had participa-
ted in the research study either.Nonetheless, the study showed that children who
had beenborn to or adopted by single lesbian mothershad more frequent contact
with a wide variety of adults of both genders, both inside and outside the family,
than children living with heterosexual mothers. She stressed that the children had
similar self-concepts and preferences for the same games as children living with
heterosexual mothers,and they also played with peers of the same gender. Addi-
tionally, the results of standardized measuring of social competencies and beha-
vioural diculties revealed that the children living in single-parent families with a
lesbian mother didnot dier from the representative sample of American children
of the same age living in single-parent families with a heterosexual mother.
A research study of children growing up in single-parent families with lesbian
mothers showed a more critical attitude of the mothers towards their children’s
sexual conformity. Their children were “liberated” from traditional sexual scripts.
This means, for instance, that the lesbian mothers in the study did not teach the-
ir daughters to be passive and submissive (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). The research
conducted by Robert-Jay Green (cf. Stacey & Biblarz, 2001: 168) demonstrated that
the daughters of lesbian mothers dressed, played and behaved in ways thatare
not traditionally ascribed to their gendermore frequently than daughters of he-
terosexual mothers. Moreover, they showed more interest in activities associated
with the characteristics socially ascribed to men and women, and they also parti-
cipated in activities ascribed to both genders, whereas the daughters ofhetero-
sexual mothers showed more interest in the activities traditionally perceived as
female. It should be noted that, when analyzing the results, the authors did not
take into account the fact that Belcastro et al. subsequently drew attention to a
potentially important issue: in most cases (39 out of 50), a year and a half after
their divorce the lesbian mothers lived together with a female partner, while in the
same period only four heterosexual mothers out of 40lived with a male partner
(Stacey & Biblarz, 2001: 168). It is thus not clear whether the dierence between
the groups originatedfrom this fact, and if it did, to what degree. Jan Steckel (Sta-
90 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
cey & Biblarz, 2001: 168) ascertained that the daughters from two-parent lesbian
families showed more interest in becoming doctors, lawyers and astronauts than
daughters from two-parent heterosexual families. In comparison with sons from
heterosexual mothers’ single-parent families, sons from single-parent lesbian fa-
milies behaved in less “traditionally male” ways in thatthey were less aggressive.
The author assumedthat when choosing their professions these menfollowed so-
cial expectations about what professions are suitable for men more than the da-
ughters of single lesbian mothers while being less limited by these expectations
than the sons of single heterosexual mothers. It should be noted, however, that
neither study took account of the conventional level of statistical signicance (p <
0.05 for two-way tests) for small samples, which makes it much more likely for the
rejection of the null hypothesis to fail (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001: 168).
Analyzing the ndings of various research studies, William Meezan and Jo-
nathan Rauch (2005) concluded that there is no evidence that during adolescence
and adulthood children from gay and lesbian families turn out to be more insecure
about their sexual orientation (identity) than children from heterosexual families,
nor are they same-sex attracted more frequently. Patterson (1992) found that the
occurrence of children of same-sex orientation in rainbow families equals that in
the general population, which is about 10%.We should emphasize, however, that
the data – or, to be more precise, the estimates – that are available in the literatu-
re on the topic of the incidence of homosexuality in the general population vary
considerably. Gary Gates (2011) of the Williams Institute in the United Statesstre-
ssedthat studies from various nations, including the US, covering varying time
periods and age groupings have produced a consistent range of 1.20–5.60% of
the adult population.At the same time, however, the 2000 US Census data showed
that 22% of lesbian-headed households and 10% of gay-headed households had a
child under the age of 18 (Reczek & Rothblum, 2012: 461). Whatever the case, there
is no exact data on the share of homosexuals in the general population, children
growing up in rainbow families or their sexual orientation in adulthood. Based on
the available research we nonetheless dare to conclude that life in rainbow families
is not a factor resulting in a higher incidence of homosexuality among children
from these families. As a matter of fact, we believe suchshares to be irrelevant. What
is important is the individual’s acceptance of their own sexual identity and social
openness to various sexual orientations and identities. Be that as it may, Meezan
and Rauch (2005.:104) pointed out that the only dierence that the research studi-
es have demonstratedis that children – especially lesbian mothers’ daughters – are
more accepting and open to dierent sexual identities (gay, lesbian, heterosexual,
bisexual, etc.) and are more willing to question their own identity than children
from heterosexual families.
articles 91
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
The eect of growing up in rainbow families on children’s
behaviour and well-being
Raymond Chan and Barbara Raboyand Patterson (1998), studied 80 families
of which 55 were two-parent lesbian families and 25 were two-parent heterosexu-
al families where the mothers had beenarticially inseminated by a sperm donor,
meaning that only one of the parents was biologically related to the child. The
participating children averaged sevenyears of age. The families received questi-
onnaires by post and thesequestionnaires were also distributed to the children’s
teachers. Having analysed the parents’ responses, one of the authors of the study
several years later concluded that “Children of lesbian and heterosexual parents
showed similar, relatively high levels of social competencies, as well as similar, re-
latively low levels of behaviour problems …” (Patterson, 2006: 242). The parents’
answers were additionally supported by those of the responding teachers. On the
basis of that study, Patterson concluded that “Parental sexual orientation was not
related to children’s adaptation” (ibid.).
What about the behaviour and well-being of older children and adolescents
growing up in gay and lesbian families? Patterson looked for the answer to this
question in an analysis of the data from “The National Longitudinal Study of Ado-
lescent Health(Add Health)” and complemented this with interviews with indivi-
duals selected from arepresentative sample of over 12,000 adolescents and their
parents. The adolescents were interviewed at school and their parents were inter-
viewed at home. The sample was drawn afterasking parents if they were marri-
ed or in a relationship similar to marriage. Those who replied with the latter were
asked about the gender of the person they were in the relationship with. Using
this method, they identied 44 12- to 18-year-olds living in rainbow families. The
author didnot provide information about whether the children lived in lesbian or
gay families. Data about them was compared to data about a comparable gro-
up of adolescents living in heterosexual families. The only statistically signicant
dierence between the two groups of adolescents was that the adolescents living
in two-parent rainbow families had a stronger sense of being connected to their
school friends than the adolescents living in two-parent heterosexual families. The
two groups showed no dierences in relation to drug use, delinquency or expo-
sure to bullying. There were likewise no dierences in the variables pointing to
children’s psychological well-being, e.g. self-image and anxiety,theirschool achie-
vements, e.g. average grades, and their problems related to school, or the variables
pointing to family relationships, e.g. adults’ care for children. The likelihood was
the same for both adolescent groups to have been in a love relationship in the 18
months before the research study was conducted (ibid.). The author concluded her
92 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
interpretation by stating that “not only is it possible for children and adolescents
who are parented by same-sex couples to develop in healthy directions, but – even
when studied in an extremely diverse, representative sample of American adoles-
cents – they generally do” (Patterson, 2006: 242).
Similar conclusions were drawn by the researchers working on the “Australian
Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS)”, which began in 2012 and is
scheduled to be completed in 2014. The “Interim Report” refers to the “data on 500
children aged 0–17 years from 315 index parents. For 80% of the children a fema-
le parent completed the survey, 18% were completed by a male parent, with 2%
having another gendered parent. These parents describe a range of sexual orien-
tations including homosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual. Ninety-three percent of
parents are currently in a relationship. … On measures of general healthand family
cohesionchildren aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents showed a
signicantly better score when compared to Australian children from all backgro-
unds and family contexts. For all other health measures there were no statistically
signicant dierences” (Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families,
2013: 1).
What do longitudinal research studies and meta-analyses
of the studies tell us about the eects of living in rainbow
families on children?
A longitudinal research study including the adult children of lesbian mothers
and a control group was carried out by Susan Golombok and her collaborators in
1983 and 1997. The sample of adult children of lesbian mothers participating in
the research in 1997 included 25 sons and daughters of lesbian mothers and 21
sons and daughters of heterosexual mothers, all of whom had already participated
in Golombok’s research in 1983. In the study done in 1983 the authors found that
in terms of sexual preferences, stigmatization, gender role behaviour, behavioural
adjustment and gender identity, there were no dierences between the two gro-
ups comprising children aged 5 to 17 years, of whom the rst group (37 children)
lived in single- or two-parent lesbian families and the comparative group (38 chil-
dren) lived with single-parent heterosexual mothers. The only dierence between
the two groups of children in 1983 was that more children of heterosexual mothers
had symptoms of mental health problems than children from families with lesbian
parents (Golombok & Tasker, 1996, Anderssen, Amlie & YitterØy, 2002: 338). The
research study conducted in 1997 showed no dierences between the two com-
pared groups (ibid.).
articles 93
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
Alicia Crowl, Soyeon Ahn and Jean Baker (2008) carried out a meta-analytical
study examining the livesof children in gay and lesbian single-parent families and
the eect this family formhas on child development. The meta-analysis included
19 research studies conducted between 1979 and 2005. The studies the authors
included in their meta-analysis had to full demanding a criteria regarding the
comparability of children from rainbow families with children from heterosexu-
al families. The total number of participants included in the analyses was 564 for
same-sex parent families and 641 for heterosexual parent families. The mean age
of the children represented in the studies was 10.4 years (range 5–24 years). The
authors stated that “in sum, children raised by same-sex and heterosexual parents
were found to not dier signicantly in terms of their cognitive development,
gender role behaviour, gender identity, psychological adjustment, or sexual pre-
ferences. For the outcome that was signicantly dierent between children of sa-
me-sex and heterosexual parents, the nding was in favour of same-sex parents.
For the outcome of parent–child relationship, same-sex parents reported having
signicantly better relationships with their children than did heterosexual parents”
(Crowl, Ahn & Baker, 2008: 398).
Similar conclusions were arrived at by Norman Anderssen and his collabora-
tors (Anderssen, Amlie & YitterØy, 2002) who carried out a meta-analysis of resear-
ch studies that examined the eect of growing up in rainbow families on children.
Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on non-clinical
children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed. Twenty of these
studies reported on the ospring of lesbian mothers and three on the ospring of
gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 ospring (age range 1.5–44
years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, all of whom were asse-
ssed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. The analysis showed that
the children from rainbow families do not dier from children from heterosexual
families in terms of emotional functioning, sexual preferences, gender role, gender
identity or cognitive functioning. Nevertheless, the authors did nd one dierence,
namely that “the nine studies that cover the issue of stigmatization of children of
lesbian mothers (eight studies) or gay fathers (one study) found generally that the
children were not stigmatized, but they tended to be teased more than their peers”
(Anderssen, Amlie & YitterØy, 2002: 344). But in spite of that, “… the studies repor-
ted few or no incidents of serious teasing, harassment or bullying due to having a
lesbian mother or gay father. … The studies clearly indicate that the children were
concerned about the chance of being stigmatized” (Anderssen, Amlie & YitterØy,
2002: 345).
94 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
The stigmatization of children living in rainbow families
As shown earlier in this article, the ACHESS studies showed that the measures
of general healthand family cohesionchildren aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex
attracted parents showed a signicantly better score when compared to Australian
children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health measures
there were no statistically signicant dierences but it is important to stress that
the general health of these children was related to the stigmatization and discrimi-
nation. The researchers concluded that “… where there is perceived stigma, expe-
riences of rejection or homophobic bullying, children with same-sex attracted pa-
rents are more likely to display problems in their psychosocial development” (ibid.:
2). The importance of the impact that social attitudes towards homosexuality and
rainbow families have on children growing up in rainbow families is seen from the
research ndings from countries that are considered to be more liberal in their atti-
tudes towards homosexuality, i.e. the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium
and Canada – all of which currently allow same-sex marriage or civil partnershi-
ps. They “… do not appear to identify as many signicant dierences in teasing
between children with same-sex attracted parents and children with heterosexual
parents” (Crough et al., 2012: 2).
An international comparative research study of the situation of children from
rainbow families at school was carried out in Slovenia between 2009 and 2011 (Za-
viršek & Sobočan, 2012). The authors investigated whether children and adoles-
cents from rainbow families experienced discrimination and dierent treatment at
school because their parents lived in same-sex partnerships. The research study in
Slovenia only included four young people (they attended secondary school, uni-
versity or were employed) since the parents of young children were “mostly afraid
that the conversation i.e. participation in the interview] could jeopardize them”
(ibid.: 52). According to the authors, a further reason for the great diculty in n-
ding children and young people to participate in the interview was the fact that
children in rainbow families in Slovenia were born mostly after the year 2005. Con-
sequently, the majority were between two and ve years old when the study was
conducted (ibid.). Although the number of their interviewees wereextremely low,
the authors assertedthat the interviewees’ narratives showed that “… as a rule they
did not experience direct attacks on their families or themselves, but they did feel
the homophobic environment that is part of their everyday life (choosing who to
tell about their family, experiencing hate speech when the topic of homosexuality
arises, etc.). The forms of everyday racism they experience are also seen in the so-
cially constructed and prescribed silence on rainbow families: it sometimes starts
as early as with the family and relatives, and it continues with peers at school” (Za-
viršek & Sobočan, 2012: 82).
articles 95
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
How life in a homophobic environment, or the silence or even hate speech
about rainbow families aects the health and well-being of children living in these
families is something that Slovenia, Croatiaand other (not only) Eastern European
countries still have to look into very carefully.It is therefore the studies undertaken
elsewhere that oeran answer. They also provide ananswer to the question about
what functions as a protective factor for the children. Crowl, Ahn and Baker (2008:
400) established that “given the negative societal and cultural messages children
receive regarding their gay or lesbian parent, parents are likely to try and maintain
a close relationship with their children to serve as a buer against the prejudice
and stigmatization their children may face”. Therefore we can join Judith Stacey
and Timothy J. Biblarz (2001) in concluding that “… there is suggestive evidence
and good reason to believe that contemporary children and young adults with
lesbian or gay parents do dier in modest and interesting ways from children with
heterosexual parents. Most of these dierences, however, are not causal, but are
indirect eects of parental gender or selection eects associated with heterosexist
social conditions under which lesbigay-parent families currently live” (ibid.: 176).
THE METHODOLOGICAL DEFICIENCIES OF THE RESEARCH
STUDIES
Numerous authors have drawnattention to the methodological deciencies
of the research studies investigatingthe impact of parents’ homosexuality on chil-
dren, that is, of the impact of living in rainbow families on children. Methodologi-
cal criticisms are mainly directed towards the disqualication of the ndings and
conclusions of the studies.
Here, we will focus on the objective shortcomings that various authors
(Huggins, 1989; Golombok & Tasker, 1996; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Crowl, Ahn &
Baker, 2008) highlighted in relation to their sampling and sample sizes. The aut-
hors stressed that the samples of children participating in the studies are often
not based on random, representative samples of children from rainbow fami-
lies, but rather on small, non-representative samples of children found through
snowballing or the researchers’ personal contacts in social networks or individual
agencies. For example, in the USA (where the majority of the studies were done)
the participants were predominantly children of homosexual, white, middle-class
parents with a good level of education and nancial status (Cramer, 1989; Crowl,
Ahn & Baker, 2008). Stacey and Biblarz (2001.) noted that a lot of the studies inclu-
ded the children of the “transitional generation”, that is, the children of gays and
lesbians who became parents during their heterosexual marriages or cohabitati-
96 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
on and who started to identify as homosexual only at the time of their divorces
or later. This, as the authors stress, “… makes it impossible to fully distinguish the
impact of a parent’s sexual orientation on a child from the impact of such factors
as divorce, re-mating, the secrecy of the closet, the process of coming out, or the
social consequences of stigma” (2001: 165). It is therefore important to know when
the parents of these children came out and whether the children were born in
heterosexual or homosexual relationships since they were raised in the dierent
patterns of important others and haddierent experiences. Another methodologi-
cal deciency should be taken into account: the share of the research studies that
looked atchildren living with lesbian mothers dominatedthe studies examining
children living in gay families. Crowl, Ahn and Baker (2008) ascribed this to the fact
that (after divorce) lesbian mothers more frequently require custody of children
than fathers. Jenni Millbank (2003), however, thought that this is also the result of
lesbian couples more frequently desiring a child than gay couples; as a consequen-
ce, they more frequently opt for articial insemination or adoption.
Stacey and Biblarz (2001) believed that the methodological problems in thisa-
rea of study arose predominantly because “… so many individuals legitimately fear
the social consequences of adopting a gay identity, and because few national sur-
veys have included questions about sexual orientation, it is impossible to gather
reliable data on such a basic demographic question as how many lesbians and gay
men there are in the general population, how many have children, or how many
children reside (or have substantial contact) with lesbian or gay parents” (2001:
164). Thissort of a problem is, we believe, a“problem” that is immanent inthe social
exclusion of diversity – not only as far as rainbow families are concerned, but in all
the areas that include the phenomena “beyond the normal”. That is why the rst
step to methodological impeccability must be the normalization and visibility of
social diversities. This is, after all, what Stacey and Biblarz underlined when writing
that “… because many lesbians and gay men remain in the closet, we cannot know
if the participants in the studies are representative of all gay people” (ibid.). As a
result it is impossible to generalize the ndings of the majority of research studies
to the whole population of children living in rainbow families. But that does not
mean that we can reject the ndings of the studies either. “However, the studies
… are just as reliable and respected as studies in most other areas of child deve-
lopment and psychology. They generally compare well-matched groups of chil-
dren with heterosexual and lesbian or gay parents. The studies we discussed have
been published in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose
standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientic stan-
dards for research on child development” (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001: 176).
articles 97
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
And what can be said about the methodological weaknesses of the research
studies carried out in Slovenia, Croatia and the other parts of Eastern Europe? Well,
not much, since there have been practically no such studies. But in societies,e.g.
in Slovenia and Croatia, where homosexuality and rainbow families provoke hate
speech, protests and popular referenda from other sectors of the population, we
cannot expect that scientists will be able to carry out research on large samples of
the populationeasily. These regions should denitely heed Schumm (2004) who
noted several limitations that underlie this line of research.In his paper, he noted
factors that researchers and policymakers should take into account when interpre-
ting the absence of signicant dierences between children raised by heterosexu-
al versus same-sex parents. Firstly, it is dicult to obtain a random representativeof
gay and lesbian parent. Many same-sex parents are not open about their sexual
orientation, thus it is often necessary to rely on volunteer participants. However,
these volunteer participants may dier in important ways from the gay and lesbian
individuals who are unwilling to expose their sexual identities, thus resulting in
biased samples. Secondly, much of the research conducted in this area is based
on fairly small sample sizes since it is dicult to obtain subjects who are willing
to participate in studies assessing the impact of their sexual orientation on their
children’s development. This small sample leads to low statistical power, increasing
the likelihood of failing to reject the null hypotheses.
Conclusion
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), the results of rese-
arch suggest that the development and well-being of children with lesbian and
gay parents do not dier markedly from those with heterosexual parents” (APA
Policy Statement Sexual Orientation, Parents & Children, 2004: 2). But children do
not only gain dierent experiences because of the family form they live in, but they
also gain experiences through the ways in which their social environment accepts
their families. Consequently, the normalization of the discourse on rainbow fami-
lies is important since we all hear it – including the children living in such families.
Perhaps this is the reason – as we have already discussed– that these children fear
stigmatization and incidents in which their peers mock the sexual orientation of
their parents.
Children have the right to parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation,
but they also have the right to special protection and life in an environment where
they donot need to fear discrimination or stigma. Moreover, as Stacey and Biblarz
emphasized, “… social science research provides no grounds for taking sexual ori-
98 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
entation into account in the political distribution of family rights and responsibiliti-
es” (2001: 179). For this reason politicians should amend legislation so as to change
the social atmosphere in which rainbow families live. Alenka Švab and Mojca Urek
stressed that it is “… crucial to break down the prejudice that still comes before
knowledge or – even worse – that presents itself as knowledge” (2006: 150). Such
prejudice is accepting completely and uncritically that the heterosexual nuclear
family as something which is – at least as far as children’s upbringing is concerned
– “good and unquestionable”. In other words, the heterosexual nuclear family is
established as the norm in relation to which all other family forms are interpreted
and valued, especially those, of course, that are formed by same-sex attracted pa-
rents. This interpretative logic forces the latter to have to “prove” that they are prac-
tically “the same”. In its essence, such a hierarchical model automatically implies
that “the dierences” between families formed by heterosexual and homosexual
parents necessarily mean a decit of the latter in relation to the former and not, for
instance, dierent qualitiesof relationships and educational activities in dierent
family forms. Thus, it fails to treat each and every one of these familiesin the same
manner from the very beginning.
Following from what has been said, we can conclude that despite the good
outcomes of growing up in rainbow families (as shown by the reviewed research
studies), one of the key issues of dealing with the population of children growing
up in rainbow families is the stigmatization of the population. This is all in spite
of the fact that foreign studies have shown that in adulthood these individuals
demonstrate good psychological adjustment, regardless of their experiences of
stigmatization, which can probably be ascribed to the educational styles in their
families. We believe that in our regions the research on how this population grows
up should be focused on the very processes of stigmatization. At the same time,
politicians and people from dierent professions should strive to break down the
prejudices and stereotypes related to growing up in rainbow families and oppose
all forms of exclusion ofthis population, regardless of their ownideological, religio-
us and other personal convictions.
articles 99
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
REFERENCES
1. Anderssen, N., C., Amlie, C. & Yitterøy, E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with
lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 43(4), 335–351.
2. APA Policy statement. Sexual orientation, parents, & children (2004).
Available on: http:www.apa.orggovernance (12. 09. 2005.).
3. Australian study of child health in same-sex families (ACHESS). Interim
report. (2013). Melbourne: School of Population & Global Health. The
University of Melbourne.
4. Biblarz, T. & Stacey, J. (2006). How does the gender of parents matter?
Paper presented at the Evolving Families Conference. Cornwell: Cornwell
University, Institute for Social Sciences.
5. Calhoun, C. (1997). Family outlaw’s: Rethinking the connection between
feminism, lesbianism, and the family. In: NelsonLindemann, H. (ed.),
Feminism and families. London, New York: Routledge.
6. Chan, R. W, Raboy, B. & Patterson, J. C. (1998). Psychosocial adjustment among
children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual
mothers. Child Development, 69 (2), 443-457.
7. Cramer, D. (1989). Gay parents and their children: A review of research and
practical implications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 504–
507.
8. Crough, R. S., Waters, E., McNair, R., Power, J. & Davis, E. (2012). ACHESS – The
Australian study of child health in same-sex families: Background research,
design and methodology. BMC Public Health, 12, 646.
9. Crowl, A., Ahn, S. & Baker, J. (2008). A Meta-Analysis on developmental
outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of
GLBT family studies, 4 (3), 385–407.
10. Farr, R. H, Forrsell, S. L. & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child-
development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter?
Applied Developmental Science, 14 (3), 164–178.
11. Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are LBGT. Los Angeles, California,
USA: University of California: The Williams Institute.
12. Golombok, S. (2000). Parenting. What really counts? London, New York:
Routledge.
13. Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents inuence the sexual orientation
of their children? Findings from longitudinal study of lesbian families.
Developmental Psychology, 32 (1), 1–15.
100 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
14. Huggins, S. L. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent
children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers.
Journal of Homosexuality, 18 (1–2), 123–135.
15. Introducing rainbow families: A guide for early childhood services.
(2010). Darebin: Rainbow Family Council and City of Darebin.
16. Johnson, S. M. & O’Conor, E. (2002). The gay baby boom: The psychology of
gay parenthood. New York: New York University Press.
17. Lick, J. D., Patterson, J. C. & Schmidt, K. M. (2013). Recalled social experiences
and current psychological adjustment among adults reared by gay and
lesbian parents. Los Angeles, California: University of California.
18. Meezan, W. & Rauch, J. (2005). Gay marriage, same sex parenting and
America’s children. Future Child, 15 (2), 97–115.
19. Millbank, J. (2003). From here to maternity: A review of the research on
lesbian and gay families. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38 (4), 541–
600.
20. Morgan, P. (2002). Children as trophies? Examining the evidence on
same-sex parenting. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: The Christian Institute.
21. Patterson, J. C. & Schmidt, K. M. (2013). Recalled social experiences and
current psychological adjustment among adults reared by lesbian and gay
parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9, 230–253.
22. Patterson, J. C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child
Development, 63, 1025–1042.
23. Patterson, J. C. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15(5), 241–244.
24. Reczek, C. & Rothblum, E. (2012). A little bit pregnant? The ethic of same-
sex marriage. In: Bigner, J. J. & Wetchler, J. L. (eds.), Handbook of LGBT-
Armative Couple and Family Therapy. New York: Routledge, 459-474.
25. Sarantakos, S. (1996). Children in the three contexts: Family, education and
social development. Children Australia, 21 (3), 23–31.
26. Schumm, W. (2004). What was really learned from the Tasker and Golombok’s
(1995) study of lesbian and single parent mothers? Psychological Reports,
94, 422-424.
27. Short, E., Riggs, W. D, Perlesz, A., Brown, R. & Kane, G. (2007). Lesbian, gay
and transgender (LGBT) parented families: A literature review prepared
for the Australian psychological society. Melbourne: The Australian
Psychological Society.
28. Sieder, R. (1998). Socialna zgodovina družine. Ljubljana: Studiahumanitatis,
ZRC.
articles 101
Andreja Hočevar: Children in Rainbow Families
29. Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. (2001). Does the sexual orientation of parents matter?
American Sociological Review, 65 (2), 159–183.
30. Švab, A. (2010). Kdo se boji (raznovrstnosti) družin? Sociološki pogledi na
sodobno družinsko življenje. Socialno delo, 49 (5-6), 341-349.
31. Švab, A. & Urek, M. (2006). Novepartnerske in družinskeo blike – primer
istospolnih partnerskih zvez in družin v Sloveniji. In: Rener, T., Sedmak,
M., Švab, A. & Urek, M., (eds.), Družine in družinsko življenje v Sloveniji.
Koper: Univerzana Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče, Založba
Annales, 127–150.
32. Urek, M. (2005). Lezbične in gejevske družine v Sloveniji: Implikacije za
socialno delo. Družboslovne razprave, 21 (4950), 155-174.
33. Zaviršek, D. & Sobočan, A. M. (2012). Mavrične družine grejo v šolo:
Perspective otrok, staršev in učiteljic. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za socialno delo.
102 articles
Ljetopis socijalnog rada 2014., 21 (1), 85-104 str.
Andreja Hočevar
Sveučilište u Ljubljani
DJECA U »DUGINIM« OBITELJIMA
SAŽETAK
Ovaj članak raspravlja o djeci u »duginim« obiteljima. To su obitelji koje čine jedan ili oba partnera homoseksualne
orijentacije koji odgajaju jedno dijete ili više djece. U radu se analiziraju nalazi različitih međunarodnih istraživanja
(prvenstveno u SAD-u i Zapadnoj Europi). Autor se fokusira na razlike djece koja su odrasla u »duginim« obiteljima u odnosu
na djecu odraslu u drugim oblicima obiteljskih zajednica. Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da ne postoje statistički značajnije
razlike između djece odrasle u »duginim« obiteljima i djece odrasle u ostalim oblicima obiteljskih zajednica s obzirom na
formiranje spolnog identiteta, spolnih pravila, emocionalnog i kognitivnog razvoja ili kod psihološke ponašajne prilagodbe.
Međutim, zdravlje i dobrobit djece koja odrastaju u »duginim« obiteljima ovisi o (strahu od) stigmatizacije i diskriminacije te
djece u društvu.
Ključne riječi: pluralizacija obiteljskih formi, »dugine« obitelji, dobrobit djece, stigmatizacija.
