Susan Golombok’s research while affiliated with University of Cambridge and other places

Reciprocal IVF is a route to parenthood that, for the first time, allows cis two-mother families (and other couples in which both partners have a uterus and egg stores) to ‘share’ biological parenthood. This family form offers a valuable opportunity for researchers to examine experiences of gestational and genetic motherhood within the same family, and this article is the first to take a sociological approach to exploring kinship within this emerging family form. Drawing upon interview data with 14 two-mother families (28 mothers) who have conceived via reciprocal IVF, we show that mothers hold complex, creative and sometimes contradictory understandings of the ‘multiple motherhoods’ within their family (i.e. genetic, epigenetic and gestational motherhood). Overall, mothers took an active and strategic approach to constructing kinship within their family, and these findings have theoretical, empirical and clinical implications.

Findings are reported from Phase 2 of a longitudinal study of family functioning in heterosexual-couple families with 5 year olds conceived using identity-release egg donation. Seventy-two egg donation families were compared to 50 in vitro fertilization (IVF) families (ethnicity: 93% White British) using standardized observational, interview, and questionnaire measures. There were no differences between family types in the quality of mother–child or father–child interaction, apart from lower structuring by fathers in egg donation families. Egg donation mothers and fathers reported higher levels of parenting stress and lower levels of confidence and competence than their IVF counterparts. Egg donation mothers reported lower social support and couple relationship quality, greater anger toward their child, and perceived their child as more angry and less happy, compared to IVF mothers. Egg donation fathers showed greater criticism and anger toward their child, less joy in parenting, and were less satisfied with the support they received, than IVF fathers. Children in egg donation families showed higher levels of externalizing problems than IVF children as rated by mothers, fathers, and teachers, whereas they were rated as having higher levels of internalizing problems by teachers only. Externalizing problems were predicted by mothers’ lower initial social support, steeper increases in parenting stress and greater concurrent criticism, whereas internalizing problems were associated with poorer initial couple relationship quality as rated by mothers. Both were predicted by fewer gains in reflective functioning. There was a moderation effect such that parenting stress was a stronger predictor of externalizing problems for egg donation than IVF families.

Study question: What are the experiences of single men using egg donation and surrogacy as a route to parenthood? Summary answer: The fathers mainly had a positive relationship with the surrogate and simultaneously exercised agency, and experienced challenges, during the process of surrogacy. What is known already: Little is known about single men's experiences of egg donation and surrogacy arrangements. Studies have focused on single men's decision-making processes about the use of surrogacy and family functioning once these families are formed. Questions remain about how fathers experience and navigate the process of surrogacy as a single man. Study design, size, duration: The study is an international, in-depth qualitative study of fathers who chose to begin a family and parent alone. Data were collected between 2018 and 2021 as part of a larger study of solo fathers with different routes to parenthood. The present study reports on 21 fathers who used surrogacy and egg donation to begin their family. The average age of the fathers was 44 years, the fathers had young children aged 6 years or younger, and lived in countries across Australia, Europe, and North America. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview topics included fathers' experiences of the process of using egg donation and surrogacy, and navigating the relationship with the surrogate. The audio-recorded interviews lasted around 2 hours and were subsequently transcribed verbatim. Main results and the role of chance: Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis. Most of the fathers chose an identifiable egg donor. Regarding the relationship with the surrogate, many fathers had remained in contact with her, but to differing degrees, and they generally reported positive relationships. Thematic analysis led to the identification of three themes relating to the fathers' experiences of choosing surrogacy as a single man: the ability to make choices; challenges and constraints; and special relationship. Limitations, reasons for caution: Due to the variation between different countries regarding laws on surrogacy, contextual factors may have impacted on the experiences of single fathers, and the sample size was small. However, the research provides new insights into an area with little academic literature. Wider implications of the findings: Given the growing trend of single men having children through surrogacy, the findings suggest that this new path to parenthood can be both rewarding and challenging. Single men may benefit from tailored support and counselling to help them navigate the surrogacy journey. Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 208013/Z/17/Z). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Trial registration number: n/a.

Elective co-parenting families, meaning two (or more parents) who are not in a romantic relationship having a child together, are becoming more common amongst cisgender, heterosexual parents. The study of elective co-parenting families offers researchers a unique opportunity to decouple co-parenting relationships from romantic relationships, but little research to date has explored their experiences. This study explored two research questions: why do individuals decide to enter into elective co-parenting arrangements? And how do they manage their co-parenting arrangement and their relationship with their co-parent? Interview data from 10 elective co-parents (5 mothers and 5 fathers) were analyzed according to the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Sociological theorisations of family practices, family display and family thinking were utilized to make sense of the data. The results centred around two organizing themes (‘Reproducing the traditional family’ and ‘Modernising the traditional family’), and participants experienced a tension between these two ideas. Participants aimed to manage their co-parenting relationship with shared values and friendship, but defining their relationship was complex and gendered parenting patterns were ubiquitous. Findings add nuance to theorisations of family life and demonstrate that traditional parenthood ideologies remain pervasive, as parents aim to imagine and pursue parenthood on their own terms.

Research question: What are mothers' disclosure intentions and practices from infancy to early childhood, and is perceived donor threat associated with disclosure in identity-release egg donation families when the children are aged 5 years? Design: This longitudinal study included 73 heterosexual-couple families with infants born following IVF-egg donation at phase one, and 61 families with 5-year-old children at phase two. At both phases, mothers were interviewed about their disclosure intentions and practices. At phase two, mothers were interviewed about their feelings about future donor-child contact. Results: Most mothers (75.3%) intended to disclose their use of egg donation to their children at phase one; half had begun to do so when their children were aged 5. Most remaining mothers planned to tell, although a minority were uncertain or planned not to disclose. When the child was aged 5, four mothers had started telling them that they could access their donor's identifying information at age 18, and most (84%) intended to do so in the future. Most couples agreed on a disclosure strategy at phase two. Most mothers perceived at least some threat from future donor-child contact, but this was unrelated to their disclosure practices. Conclusions: Disclosure intentions in infancy are borne out in early childhood. Despite perceiving some threat from future donor-child contact, most mothers intended telling their child that they could access the donor's identifying information at age 18. Revisiting these families as the children grow older will be important to understand how the mothers' perceived donor threat may change over time, and how this is related to family processes.

The seventh phase of this longitudinal study investigated whether children born through third-party assisted reproduction experienced psychological problems, or difficulties in their relationship with their mothers, in early adulthood. The impact of disclosure of their biological origins, and quality of mother-child relationships from age 3 onward, were also examined. Sixty-five assisted reproduction families, including 22 surrogacy families, 17 egg donation families, and 26 sperm donation families, were compared with 52 unassisted conception families when the children were aged 20. Less than half of the mothers had completed tertiary education and less than 5% were from ethnic minority backgrounds. Standardized interviews and questionnaires were administered to mothers and young adults. There were no differences between assisted reproduction and unassisted conception families in mothers' or young adults' psychological well-being, or the quality of family relationships. However, within the gamete donation families, egg donation mothers reported less positive family relationships than sperm donation mothers, and young adults conceived by sperm donation reported poorer family communication than those conceived by egg donation. Young adults who learned about their biological origins before age 7 had less negative relationships with their mothers, and their mothers showed lower levels of anxiety and depression. Associations between parenting and child adjustment did not differ between assisted and unassisted reproduction families from ages 3 to 20. The findings suggest that the absence of a biological connection between children and their parents in assisted reproduction families does not interfere with the development of positive mother-child relationships or psychological adjustment in adulthood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Study question: What are thoughts and feelings of young adults born following egg donation, sperm donation, and surrogacy? Summary answer: Young adults felt either unconcerned or positive about the method of their conception. What is known already: Much of what we know about adults born to heterosexual couples following anonymous donation has come from samples of donor conceived people who had found out about their origins during adulthood. There have been no studies of how young adults born through surrogacy feel about their conception and towards their surrogate. Study design, size, duration: Thirty-five young adults were interviewed as part of the seventh phase of a larger multi-method, multi-informant longitudinal study of assisted conception families in the UK. Adults were conceived using either egg donation, sperm donation, gestational surrogacy, or genetic surrogacy and were raised in households headed by heterosexual couples. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Participants had a mean age of 20 years and were born following traditional surrogacy (n = 10), gestational surrogacy (n = 5), egg donation (n = 11), or sperm donation (n = 9). All young adults born following sperm donation and most (n = 10) born from egg donation had an anonymous donor. In all surrogacy arrangements, the parents had met the surrogate prior to treatment. The majority of young adults were told about their conception by the age of 4 years. Participants were interviewed over the internet using a semi-structured interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis to understand young adults' thoughts and experiences related to their conception and whether they were interested in meeting their donor or surrogate. Main results and the role of chance: Fourteen (40%) young adults felt their conception made them feel special or unique, with the remainder feeling either neutral or unconcerned (n = 21, 60%). A higher proportion of young adults conceived using egg donation (n = 8, 73%) felt unique/special compared to young adults born following sperm donation and surrogacy. For 10 of the young adults, their feelings about their conception had changed over time, with most becoming more positive (n = 9, 26%). For most young adults (n = 22, 63%), conception was rarely or infrequently discussed with others. However, when it was, these conversations were largely conducted with ease. Most (n = 25, 71%) did not know other individuals born through the same method of conception as themselves, and the vast majority (n = 34, 97%) were not members of any support groups. For the 25 young adults not in contact with their donor or surrogate, 11 wished to meet them, 8 did not want to have contact, and 6 were unsure. Young adults in contact with their donor or surrogate had varying levels of closeness to them. Only one young adult had searched for the identity of their donor. Limitations, reasons for caution: Of the 47 young adults invited to participate in the present study, 35 agreed to take part resulting in a response rate of 74%. It is therefore not known how those who did not take part felt about their conception. Given that the families reported here had been taking part in this longitudinal study from when the target child was aged 1 year, they may have been more likely to discuss the child's conception than other families. The study also utilized self-report measures, which may have been prone to social desirability, with donor conceived young adults wanting to present their experiences in a positive light. Wider implications of the findings: The findings suggest that young adults born through surrogacy and donor conception do not feel negatively about their birth and this may be a consequence of the young age at which they found out about their conception. Although some young adults said they wished to meet their donor, this did not necessarily mean they were actively searching for them. Study funding/competing interest(s): The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 208013/Z/17/Z]. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Trial registration number: N/A.

Study question: Does shared biological motherhood, in which a woman gives birth to the genetic child of her female partner, result in more positive mother-child relationships than donor insemination, in which only one mother is biologically related to the child? Summary answer: Mothers in both family types showed high levels of bonding with their children and viewed their relationship with their child positively. What is known already: There is some evidence of feelings of inequality regarding their relationship with their child between biological and non-biological mothers in lesbian mother families formed by donor insemination, with a qualitative longitudinal study showing a tendency for children to form stronger bonds with their biological than their non-biological mother. Study design, size, duration: Thirty lesbian mother families created through shared biological motherhood were compared with 30 lesbian mother families formed by donor-IVF. All families had two mothers who both participated in the study, and the children were aged from infancy up to 8 years old. Data collection took place over 20 months beginning in December 2019. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Each mother in the family was interviewed separately using the Parent Development Interview (PDI), a reliable and valid measure of the nature of the parent's emotional bond with their child. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded separately by one of two trained researchers who were unaware of the child's family type. The interview produces 13 variables that relate to the parent's representations of themselves as a parent, 5 variables that relate to the parent's representations of the child, and a global variable that assesses the extent to which the parent can reflect on the child and their relationship. Main results and the role of chance: Families formed through shared biological parenthood did not differ from families created by donor-IVF in terms of the quality of mothers' relationships with their children as assessed by the PDI. Neither were differences identified between birth mothers and non-birth mothers across the entire sample, or between gestational and genetic mothers within the families formed by shared biological parenthood. Multivariate analyses were conducted to minimize the role of chance. Limitations, reasons for caution: Ideally, larger samples of families and a narrower age range of children would have been studied, but this was not possible as we were reliant on the small number of families formed through shared biological motherhood in the UK when the study began. To maintain the anonymity of the families, it was not possible to request information from the clinic that may have shed light on differences between those who responded to the request to participate and those who did not. Wider implications of the findings: The findings show that shared biological motherhood is a positive option for lesbian couples who wish to have a more equal biological relationship to their children. One type of biological connection does not appear to have a greater influence on the quality of parent-child relationships than the other. Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant ES/S001611/1. KA is Director, and NM is Medical Director, of the London Women's Clinic. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Trial registration number: N/A.