 

, ' V “-0.1“ vnvv—v

L‘.

  

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

.nd H}, 1.. m.. an“ LB

 

w

 

 

 

 

 

3' lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\llllll

.999 31293 018

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES: A QUALITATIVE

STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL
AND INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

presented by

Lucy Renee Mercier

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

PhoDo degree in SOCial Work

A Mull

Major professor

8-24-??

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
@811 3 tom

‘ T (“Q1 r0"L
lo i5L 1 12001

p 8::0805 2051‘
Wibq ‘
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 chlRCJDateDmpGS—p.“

 

 

LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS
OF INSTITUTIONAL AND INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

By

Lucy Renee Mercier

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Social Work

1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS
OF INSTITUTIONAL AND INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

By

Lucy Renee Mercier

 

Social and political discourse on gay and lesbian families, increased public
knowledge of single-parent and same-sex families, and the notoriety of a few
lesbians in popular culture recently have focused attention on lesbian mother

families. In response, social science researchers have begun to examine some

 

of the conditions and circumstances of lesbian mother families. This project
attempted to provide an in-depth exploration of the interactions within lesbian
mother families and between these families and the social environment.

This study used a modiﬁed snowball sampling technique to recruit 125

self-identiﬁed lesbian mothers living in Michigan. Respondents completed

 

questionnaires that gathered information on demographics, relationship status, 121:]
family composition, and level of support for sexual orientation. In addition,

descriptive data on respondents' children were gathered. While the

questionnaire data provided important information about the sample of lesbian

mother families, the focus of the study was on face-to—face interviews with a sub-

sample of 21volunteers selected from the questionnaire sample. Interviews

centered on the completion of genograms and ‘eco maps for respondent families.

Data were collected on types of relationships, satisfaction with relationships,

relationship strengths and relationship stressors for interactions within families
and between families and their environments.

Analysis of interview data for partner-partner, parent—child, sibling,
household-children’s schools, and household-mothers’ work relationships
revealed that the lesbian mothers in this study were strongly committed to caring
for their children and to maintaining their families. Respondents were open about
sexual orientation, were highly involved in their children’s schools, and used
creative strategies for balancing work and family. Areas of stress as well as
strategies for responding to challenges to family survival and success were
highlighted.

Implications of the study for policy, practice, and research are discussed.

Copyright by
Lucy Renee Mercier
1 999

For my partner, Linda, and our son, Robert, because of their endless patience,
sustenance and humor throughout this process. Also, for the women and men
who preceded us with courage and dignity, preparing a place for our family to

thnve.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would never have survived its initial moments of
conceptualization without the support of many generous and gifted individuals. I
particularly acknowledge Rena Harold, who has been mentor, colleague and
friend throughout my doctoral program. Her capable leadership and skillful
guidance has made this project come to life, while her patience, humor and
warmth have sustained me through my own convoluted writing process. Jo Ann
McFall, too, has given me generous support and encouragement. She allowed
me the time and space to ﬁnish this project, and has acted as a model of
professional development throughout my program. Others in the School of
Social Work have been invaluable sources of assistance throughout this project.
Margaret Nielsen gave me reassurance and practical assistance, particularly
when initial recruitment of respondents was disappointingly low. Diane Levande
provided regular doses of stimulating conversation, encouragement, and advice.
Gary Anderson, Director of the School of Social Work, assured the provision of
material support for the project, particularly in its ﬁnal stages. In addition, Joyce
Ladenson provided a valuable ‘outsider' perspective to the project. Cliff
Broman’s willingness to participate in this piece of unconventional family
research was much appreciated. Peg Whalen’s statistical assistance and
tutoring, and Linda Campbell’s editorial comments have been humbling, but
priceless.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the contributions of the lesbian moms who

gave signiﬁcantly of their time to participate in this project. Their honest

vii

disclosure of the conditions of their lives has resulted in a gold mine of data.
More than that, though, they have modeled determination and dedication to

families and children. I have felt privileged to know each of them.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xii

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................... 5
Research Summaries ................................................................................. 8
Legal Concerns ........................................................................................ 1 1
Clinical Perspectives ................................................................................ 16
The Decision to Parent ............................................................................. 20
Comparative Studies ................................................................................ 23
Studies of Lesbian Family Life ................................................................. 26
Research Questions ................................................................................. 33

Chapter 2

METHODS .......................................................................................................... 35
Human Subjects Clearance ...................................................................... 36
Recruitment and Sampling Procedure ..................................................... 36
Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 39
Interview Procedures ............................................................................... 40
Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 44

Chapter 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE ...................................................................... 48
General Overview of the Respondents .................................................... 48
Race, Education and Income ................................................................... 49
Occupation ............................................................................................... 50
Geographic Distribution ............................................................................ 51
Religion .................................................................................................... 52
Relationship Status .................................................................................. 52
Level of Support for Respondent Sexual Orientation ............................... 53
Overview of Respondents' Children ......................................................... 55
Children’s Race ........................................................................................ 56
Respondent Family Size and Living Arrangements .................................. 57
Child Care Arrangements ......................................................................... 58
Methods of Creating Family ..................................................................... 58
Children’s Responses to Mothers’ Orientation ......................................... 60
Interview Participant Descriptions ............................................................ 60

Chapter 4

RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES ................................ 79
Relationships Between Co-parenting Lesbian Partners ........................... 79
Centrality and intensity .................................................................. 80
Focus on communication .............................................................. 82
Shared interest in the family .......................................................... 83
Complementary characteristics ..................................................... 84
Surviving adversity ........................................................................ 85
Roadblocks to intimacy ................................................................. 86
Relationships Between Lesbian Mothers and their Children .................... 88
Getting and keeping children .......................................................... 89
Desire for more time together ........................................................ 91
Attempts to integrate a new mother .............................................. 92
Non-positive interactions ............................................................... 94
Relationships Between Siblings in Lesbian Mother Families ................... 97
Sibling rivalry ................................................................................. 98
Sibling attachment ......................................................................... 99
Opportunities to grow .................................................................. 101
Chapter 5
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES
AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 104
Relationships With Children’s Schools ................................................... 104
School milieu ............................................................................... 106
Inﬂuencing attitudes toward lesbian mother families ................... 110
Managing disclosure about sexual orientation ............................ 112
Invisibility of non-biological mothers ............................................ 115
Impact on children ....................................................................... 118
Relationships With Parents’ Employers ................................................. 122
Instrumental support .................................................................... 125
Interpersonal support .................................................................. 129
Integration of work and family ..................................................... 133
Strategies for balancing work and family ..................................... 138
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 143
Summary of the Study ........................................................................... 143
Implications for Policy ............................................................................ 153
Implications for Practice ......................................................................... 156
Implications for Research ...................................................................... 159
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 163
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 164
A: University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects Application and Approval ............................................ 165

B Sample Cover Letter ............................................................................. 174
C Sample Press Release ......................................................................... 176
D: Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 178
E Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 186
F Tables .................................................................................................... 1 96
G Figures .................................................................................................. 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 216

xi

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.

Table 13.

LIST OF TABLES

Respondents’ race, household income, and level of education.

Respondents’ participation in the work force and ﬁelds of
employment.

Respondents’ religious afﬁliation and participation.
Respondents’ relationship status.

Persons aware of respondents’ sexual orientation.

Sex, age, and grade in school for respondents’ children.
Race I ethnicity for respondents’ children.

Living arrangements for respondents’ children.

Child care arrangements for respondents’ children.
Timing and methods of creating families.

Interview respondents.

Relationship themes within lesbian mother families.

Relationship themes between lesbian mother families and the
social environment.

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Family eco map.
Respondents' primary residence by county.
Length of relationship for partnered respondents.

Age of respondents’ children.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

While families headed by lesbian mothers do not represent a new family
form, recent publicity about lesbian mothers may make it seem so. Signiﬁcant
social and political discourse on gay and lesbian family policy, increased public
knowledge about alternative fertilization, and the notoriety of a few lesbians in
popular culture have focused attention on same-sex couples as parents. While
gay and lesbian parenting has been debated by legislative and judicial bodies
and the media for the past few years, social scientists have been collecting data
about families headed by lesbian and gay adults since the 1980’s. For the past
two decades, psychologists, sociologists, social workers and cultural
anthropologists have reported on lesbian mother families, and have begun to
describe the particular challenges faced by lesbians and their children in the
United States and other western cultures (Parks, 1998).

The profession of social work is uniquely concerned with the intersection
between human beings and the social environment. Social workers are also
charged with a responsibility to understand and assist members of
disadvantaged groups, especially those for whom oppression is the result of
social conditions (National Association of Social Workers, 1996). Thus, the study
of lesbian mother families is relevant to social work in that it directly responds to
the profession’s charge to “promote sensitivity to and knowledge about
oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity” (p. 5)

Most social scientists agree that lesbians are increasingly involved in

motherhood (e.g. Amup, 1995; Lewin, 1993; Weston, 1991). In the past, most

lesbian mothers were involved in parenting the children born to them through
heterosexual partnerings (Lewin, 1993). Changes in reproductive technology and
in interpretation of family law seem to have resulted in greater overall numbers of
actively parenting lesbians (Patterson, 1995), as more women choose to have
children within the context of a primary relationship with another woman or within
the social environment of the lesbian community (Martin, 1993). The experiences
of these women suggest a number of special issues and problems that are
properly the focus of social work research and analysis.

Contemporary lesbian parenting is inﬂuenced by social, economic,
interpersonal and individual factors. That is, the visibility and viability of lesbian-
headed families are inﬂuenced by deﬁnitions of sexual orientation and deviance,
availability of wage labor, and social support for women living independently from
men (Laird & Green, 1996). Oppression, as well as opportunity to overcome
discriminatory practices and conditions, shapes the context in which lesbian
mothers create and nurture their families (Hartman, 1996). Such factors inﬂuence
the individual experiences and outcomes of lesbian mothers, while they help to
frame the social conditions that impact all American families.

The topic of sexual orientation in social work and family theory is important
because of its relationship to issues as diverse as gender roles in family life,
understanding of family structure and function, the impact of social support and
social policy on family life, and the role of individual experience in the success of
families. Descriptive research that uses demographic data to explore the

relevance of sexual orientation with respect to oppression is difﬁcult to

accomplish because of the reluctance of research subjects to identify
themselves. However, anecdotal evidence and several national surveys reveal
that gay men and lesbians experience signiﬁcant problems in daily life: rejection
by families of origin and important sources of interpersonal support; employment
discrimination; denial of certain employment-related beneﬁts (e.g. domestic
partner programs and family leave); barriers to legally-recognized marriage (and
thus all the federal and state beneﬁts that marriage allows); threats to child
custody; and increased risk of anti-gay violence (Harvard Law Review, 1990). In
addition to these rather concrete issues, lesbians and gay men report that social
stigmatization, and the fear of subtler forms of discrimination or rejection,
negatively impact the quality of their lives (Steinhom, 1985).

Almajor theme of contemporary family research is its increasing
recognition of diverse families (Berardo, 1991). As deﬁnitions of family move
away from conventional gender constraints, new knowledge emerges that
emphasizes an understanding of family as a complex and changeable arena for
working through interpersonal, economic, political and other relations (Ferree,
1991). While important research on mainstream families continues, sociological
understanding of non-traditional families is vital to the continuing development of
knowledge in the ﬁeld. Lesbian mother families “provide a fertile testing ground
for family theories and simultaneously pose challenges for dominant family
theories” (Demo & Allen, 1996. p. 423).

In addition, lesbian mother families share important commonalties with

many contemporary families, so exploration of the experiences of lesbian

mothers also has important implications for many parents outside of the lesbian
community. Research on lesbian mother families helps to illuminate the larger
questions asked by social scientists trying to understand alternative family forms
and increases understanding of the relationships between gender, sexuality and
family. Single heterosexual mothers or fathers, gay men who parent, unmarried
cohabiting heterosexual parents, and grandparents who raise grandchildren may
experience many of the conditions impacting lesbian-mother families.

This project proceeded from earlier studies of lesbian mothers, with a
particular emphasis on the exploration of institutional and interpersonal support
and obstacles in the social environments of lesbian mother families. It rested on
the assumption that lesbians are challenged by social, economic, and
interpersonal factors and that these conditions inﬂuence their experiences as
members of families. Rather than focusing on problems, however, I hoped that
the nature of this research design would yield data that reﬂect both obstacles and
opportunities in the respondents’ families and social interactions.

While demographic data were collected and quantitatively analyzed, the
primary focus of this study was on rich descriptions of relationships within the
family and between the family and systems in the social environment. By using
face-to-face interviews in a qualitative research farmat, I hoped to bring the

voices of lesbian mothers more directly into the academic conversation about

their lives and experiences.

Chapter 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The literature on lesbian mothers is surprisingly abundant. Most of the
social science research on lesbian mother families is found in the disciplines of
sociology and psychology. In addition, social workers have written about this
population from both social policy and clinical perspectives, while Lewin (1993)
and Weston (1991) offer two notable anthropological perspectives. l have also
included in this review important works from the lesbian press. Pies’ (1988) and
Martin’s (1993) books are widely read and cited as source books for lesbian
mothers and are included here in order to more directly reﬂect the experiences
and concerns of lesbian mother families.

Much of the research on lesbian mother families has been conducted
without evidence of a formal connection to a larger research agenda. While a
few of the studies reviewed here included references to theoretical or conceptual
foundations for research activities, the majority of the studies were exploratory or
descriptive in nature. The condition of research on lesbian mother families, then,
seems to parallel that of research on other types of families. Knowledge building
about lesbian mothers has not always followed the conventions of theory building
(Sprey, 1991). Because the research on lesbian mothers is interdisciplinary and
issue-driven, its theoretical development has been uneven. For example, studies
inﬂuenced by liberal feminist concern about equal access to resources (e.g.,

Martin, 1993) occur side-by-side with increasing numbers of projects inﬂuenced

by feminist standpoint theory and intersectionist analyses (e.g., Mitchell, 1996).
While the diverse theory bases are not necessarily exclusive, they may rely on
completely different world-views, and thus the conclusions drawn from the
studies do not always complement each other.

The following section is an overview and critical analysis of the research
on lesbian mother families. Throughout, l have attempted to provide context for
various approaches to studying lesbian mothers. As Sprey (1991) pointed out,
research on the family is subject to trends and currents, many of which provide
opportunities for enhancing the quality of the research, as well as the relevance
of the knowledge gathered. Recently, researchers seem to agree that lesbian
mother families are unique, diverse, and impacted by a wide range of inﬂuences
and factors. Dahlheimer and Feigal (1991 ), for example, emphasized the
interplay of individual, relational, social, political, economic and other factors in
the lives of lesbian mothers. While the research on lesbian mother families has
often failed to follow a coherent research agenda, it is beginning to address the
wide range of factors impacting these families.

The topic of lesbian mothers is embedded in the development of
knowledge about women and their experiences, and in the consideration of the
ways in which women, as members of a distinct sOcial group, experience and
manage diverse circumstances. Traditional social science research has often
ignored women's experiences, misinterpreted women's responses, or dismissed
women's issues as unimportant (Stacey & Thome, 1985). Even when women's

concerns have been addressed in research and practice, the limitations of

conventional social science epistemology have impaired researchers’ chances of
producing results that are relevant for women (Harding, 1991). Similarly, in the
unique circumstances under which social scientists adequately address issues of
gender, frameworks for knowledge often have failed to account forvariance in

women's experience in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and other axes

’- ~‘§_‘ ‘

omifferenceﬁmith, 1990). These epistemological shortcomings limit the
usefulness of conventional research. More importantly, restrictive frameworks for

\

knowledge produce afclimate of false knowledge, leading practitioners and V
researchers alike to accept the false assumptions upon which conventional social
research is often based.

In this chapter, I will review the existing literature on lesbian mothers and
their families. The review begins with an overview of four major research
summaries that provide a foundation for the detailed examination of studies
covered in subsequent sections. Literature on legal issues is surveyed in order
to provide background on policy issues and to explore the historical signiﬁcance
of child custody issues with lesbian mothers. Writing about clinical intervention
with lesbian mother families, and studies of lesbians decisions about parenting
provide knowledge about practice concerns with lesbian mothers. Research that
compares lesbian mothers with other populations, as well as more recent studies
thaTZonsider lesbian parenting as a unique experience, are reviewed for their

relevance for knowledge development in the ﬁeld of family studies. The chapter

concludes with the research questions that provided the basis for this study.

Research Summaries

Scholarly and systematic research about lesbians has been conducted for
approximately the past 40 years (Tully, 1995). In contrast to the large body of
literature that explores sex roles, female psychosocial development and various
attitudes and behaviors of heterosexual women, the research on lesbians has
been relatively circumscribed. Speciﬁc studies of lesbian mothers are even more
limited in number and scope. Since the 1980’s however, researchers have
begun to acknowledge lesbian parenting with greater attention to the
characteristics of lesbian mother families, as well as to the processes by which
these families are built and maintained (Parks, 1998).

The writing on research and research trends in the study of lesbian
mothers reﬂects a self-consciousness about the ways in which knowledge
development occurs in the social context. Research summaries serve to place
the study of lesbian mothers into a cultural and epistemological perspective,
clarifying the signiﬁcance of speciﬁc research questions as well as the selection
of research subjects. The research summaries reviewed here place the
contemporary study of lesbian mothers into an historical framework.

The research. on lesbian mothers tends to fall into general categories
based on the focus of the researchers. The categories themselves are
instructive, insofar as they reﬂect the general viewpoint of the research
community and the state of knowledge development in relation to lesbians as
mothers. Four recent works reviewed and analyzed trends in research related to

lesbian mothers. These authors used the implicit categories suggested by

research questions and outcomes to examine trends in research on lesbians
overall. The research summaries also projected future trends and suggested
frameworks appropriate for the study of lesbians and lesbian families. The
following is a review of those summaries.

Joan Laird (1994) examined the major themes and trends in research on
lesbians with an emphasis on the ways in which the positivist paradigm restricts
understanding about the unique strengths of lesbian families. Laird identiﬁed the
major research themes related to lesbians as: causation of homosexuality; gay
and lesbian mental health; coming out; gay and lesbian couple relationships; and
children of lesbian parents. She noted that these themes reﬂect the research
community's "deﬁcit-based stance" (p. 268) and its emphasis on individual,
psychological and cognitive constructs. Laird argued for a re-vision of lesbian life
as one in which women move from one cultural context to another with relative
ease.

Carol Tully (1995) examined the major historic themes in research about
lesbians in detail. She found that, beginning in the 1950's, research on lesbians
focused on the etiology of lesbianism, especially the role of childhood
experiences, family relationships, and genetics. A review of the data collected
over four decades of study on the ‘causes’ of lesbianism exposed the research
as inconclusive. Like Laird, Tully noted that, between the 1960's and 1980's,
researchers shifted from focusing on lesbianism as pathology to an exploration of
lesbian identity development, and social integration. Since the 1970's, research

has emphasized the strengths of lesbian respondents by examining their social

behavior, intimate relationships, political and occupational roles, sexual norms,
and families of origin. Since the 1980's, studies that focus on adolescence,
adulthood, midlife, and aging have collected data on the spectrum of experiences
and issues encountered by lesbians across the life span. Tully described a ﬁnal
trend in research about lesbians, namely, the focus on clinical intervention with
lesbians and their families. In contrast to the early deﬁcit-driven research on
etiology and psychological functioning, these studies focus on the role of the
helping professional in assisting lesbians to manage the unique stressors of
living as an oppressed minority.

Allen and Demo (1995) reviewed the research on lesbians by examining
the ways in which the family relations of lesbians and gay men have been
described in the social science literature. They reviewed articles published in
nine professional journals, concluding that the published research on these
families remains limited. However, they noted that gays and lesbians have
gained a modest visibility in the literature since 1980. Nevertheless, Allen and
Demo insisted that this trend toward greater visibility is generally superﬁcial. "For
the most part, lesbians and gay men, as individuals or couples, but rarely as
members of families, are mentioned at the beginning or end of an article in a list
of examples of diverse experience" (p. 17).

The most recent review of the literature on lesbian mothers (Parks, 1998)
called for research that explores the ways in which lesbian mother families
develop and function outside of traditional social support systems. Parks

emphasized the heterogeneity of lesbian mother families, with particular attention

10

to each lesbian mother’s “parenthood history” (p. 387), and to the unique
structures and relationships formed in various lesbian mother families.

The exclusionary methods and practices of family researchers are
highlighted by each of the preceding research summaries. Allen and Demo
(1995) challenged the use of large, demographic data sets in which information
about sexual orientation has not been collected and decried the practice of
assuming that marital status or parenting role is a valid indicator of heterosexual
orientation. Parks (1998) pointed out the limitations of small sample sizes and
the continued concentration of white, middle class women as both researchers
and respondents in this area. Continued integration of lesbian and gay
standpoints into the family studies research paradigm is suggested through non-
traditional frameworks such as biculturalism, life course perspective, social
ecology and feminist theory (Allen 8. Demo, 1995) and ethnographic and feminist
research methods (Laird, 1994; Tully, 1995).

W

Research and writing about lesbian mothers has long been associated
with issues of family and civil law, such as child custody and inheritance rights.
While much of the writing on legal aspects of lesbian motherhood is oriented
toward the legal community, several authors provide summary material relevant
to this review and so are mentioned here.

A fundamental issue for lesbian mother families is the way in which
lesbians' access to socially- and legally-sanctioned family forms is restricted by

traditional deﬁnitions of family. The implications of exclusion from the institution

11

of family are especially profound for lesbian couples. Since same-sex couples
are not offered the option of legally recognized marriage, even strongly
committed, long-term lesbian relationships are marked by the absence of legal
protections automatically afforded heterosexual couples. Death beneﬁts,
inheritance laws, and the protections normally provided by trusts and wills are not
ensured for surviving members of lesbian couples, and may limit ability to provide
for children (Harvard Law Review, 1990). Similarly, state laws systematically
discriminate against gay and lesbian families in other arenas such as housing,
workers' compensation beneﬁts and tort actions where the plaintiff is a same-sex
partner of a victim (Harvard Law Review, 1990). Some lesbian couples attempt
to subvert these legal realities by drawing up legal documents, such as powers of
attorney, wills, and trusts, but even then, few have the assurance of well-
established legal precedent in support of their families. In the event that one
member of a lesbian couple dies or becomes incapacitated, biological relatives
can and do challenge the claim of the remaining partner over children and
property.

Legal concerns around child custody and parenting rights/obligations are
complex and evolving issues for lesbian mothers (Martin, 1993). In Western
culture, parental obligation for the support and care of minor children is regarded
as one of the primary functions of family life. In addition to the obligations of
acting as guardians of their children, parents have important privileges, including

the right to associate with and live with their children, and to make innumerable

12

decisions regarding their children’s health, education, activities and other
functions (Curry, Clifford & Leonard, 1994).

Besides these everyday obligations and advantages, parental status offers
some powerful legal protections, especially when questions arise over the
competence of parents to take care of their children. Thus, in cases where the
custody of a child is disputed in court, the law generally favors the biological/legal
parent(s), except when remaining with the parent would not be in the "best
interests of the child" (Harvard Law Review, 1990). Historically, discovery of a
custodial parent's homosexuality has been sufﬁcient cause to legally challenge
child custody arrangements. Today, while most courts no longer award custody
to the heterosexual parent solely based on sexual orientation, such
considerations are legal and are applied (Rivera, 1987; Harvard Law Review,

1 990).

Arguments against lesbian mothers in custody suits traditionally have
invoked stereotypes about lesbians as emotionally immature, unstable, non-
matemal, and likely to expose children to sexual abuse (Falk, 1989).
Alternatively, the courts have heard arguments suggesting that children of
lesbian mothers are likely to be teased by peers, that the mother's
romantic/sexual relationships will not allow adeqUate time for parenting, and that
children will become mentally ill by exposure to their mothers' lifestyle (Kleber,
Howell and Tibbits-Kleber, 1986). The most common argument against awarding

custody to a lesbian mother, however, has been the assumption that children

13

raised by lesbians are more likely to become homosexual themselves (Falk,
1 989).

Beyond the obvious and debatable assumption that heterosexual parents
and children are more desirable than homosexuals are, the implications of such
legal arguments in separating mothers and children are enormous. As early as
three decades ago, studies investigating these assumptions about lesbian
mothers found them to be unsubstantiated by empirical data (e.g., Browne &
Giampetro, 1985; Rand, Graham & Rawlings, 1982). A review of research on
lesbian mothers and child custody reveals that "research regarding lesbian
motherhood has consistently failed to provide any evidence for necessarily
inferior parenting styles" (Kleber, Howell 8 Tibbits-Kleber, 1986, p. 86). In spite
of consistent social science evidence that lesbian mothers are often
indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts, judges and family court
referees continue to consider such arguments in hearings for custody, visitation
and parental rights (Harvard Law Review, 1990: Polikoff, 1986; Robson, 1994).

Law and custom act simultaneously as protection and hazard for lesbian
parents. Lesbians who are the biological mothers of their children are often
favored in child custody disputes because of traditions which privilege birth
mothers over all others in determining the "best interests of the child" (Polikoff,
1986). Thus, even in cases where neglect or abuse is alleged, legal precedent
exists which steers the court toward continued placement with the mother until /
unless gross endangerment to the child is substantiated. Even in cases where

the sexual orientation of the mother is considered, more and more courts are

14

deciding in favor of the biological mother of the child (ren), not because the court
accepts or supports diversity in family structure, but because the rights of
biological parents are considered preponderant in such cases (Harvard Law
Review, 1990).

On the other hand, the law disadvantages lesbian mothers who are not
the birth mothers of their children. Non-biological mothers are often unable to
obtain legal custody or guardianship of children they have supported and raised
since birth, even after the death of the child's birth mother. Similarly, even when
the birth mother or adoptive mother desires a co-parent to be legally recognized
so that support obligations, insurance coverage and others beneﬁts can be
assured, the courts may not allow the action (Hitchens, 1979; 1988).

In lesbian mother families, the non-biological Inon-adoptive co-parent lives
in "a legal as well as social and emotional nethenlvorld" (Muzio, 1993, p. 225).
The implication of invisibility for this sub-group of lesbian mothers is important in
exploring the formation and maintenance of lesbian mother families. The
planned two-parent lesbian mother family, in particular, challenges the
assumption that there can be no more than one mother at a time in a family.

Some states are beginning to test provisions for two unrelated people to
adopt the same child by allowing lesbian co-parents to carry out second-parent
adoptions. Some second-parent adoptions use precedents set by step parent
adoptions (Harvard Law Review, 1990). Others rely on recent adoption reforms
to re-interpret adoption law. In second-parent adoptions, legal parents may

chose adoptive parents for their children. In some courts, by naming themselves

15

and their female partners as these new adoptive parents, mothers have been
able to legally afﬁrrn the existing co-parenting relationship. The procedure is not
without risk and expense. A home study must be completed by a licensed social
service agency. Mothers must voluntarily relinquish their legal rights to the
children, if only for a brief time. Social service and court fees run into thousands
of dollars in most cases. Finally, many judges simply refuse to grant second-
parent adoptions. As of April 1997, courts in the District of Columbia and 21
states had approved second-parent adoptions by lesbian and gay couples, but
the process is not universally available even in those areas (Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund, 1997).
Clinical Perspectives

Although writing about legal concerns was an early focus in the lesbian
mother literature, the contemporary focus in the ﬁeld is on writing by and for
clinicians who encounter lesbians as individuals and members of families in
distress. Literature in this category emphasizes the professional obligation of
therapists, educators, and social service practitioners to familiarize themselves
with sexual minorities and to use realistic and empowering strategies in their
clinical work with lesbians and their families. The presence of these articles in
the social science literature speaks to the authorS' continued perception that sub-
standard service is provided to lesbian mother families. In addition, as with other
populations, clinical literature impacts problem deﬁnition and the construction of

knowledge about a population (Ganong 8 Coleman, 1994).

16

Mamy Hall (1978) introduced a number of themes about lesbian
motherhood that have echoed through the literature for nearly 20 years. Using
anecdotal data, she described the stressors experienced by lesbians who must
deal with disclosure of their sexual orientation and a changing socio-political
climate, including threats to child custody, ambivalence about the role of the co-
parent in the family, concerns about gender socialization for male children, and
disclosure of parental sexual orientation to children. Since Hall’s initial work,
several authors have restated the problems encountered by lesbian mothers.
Child support and child custody litigation (Erlichman, 1988; Steinhom, 1985),
problems in social relationships and communication with children (Patterson,
1994; Steinhom, 1985), and heterosexism in the practice community (Crawford,
1987; Markowitz, 1991) are frequently reviewed and discussed as common
experiences for lesbian mother families.

Therapists and other human service professionals continue to struggle in
their relationships with lesbian mother families. Evidence of this struggle is found
in nearly all of the clinical literature on lesbian mother families, which continues to
include exhortations to: acknowledge the existence of lesbian mother families; to
confront individual and institutional heterosexism; to increase education about
lesbian mothers’ special needs and resources; and to increase advocacy for
lesbian mother families in the judicial system, treatment context and professional
community (Dahlheimer 8. Feigal, 1991; Erlichman, 1988; Hall,1978;

Kirkpatrick,1987; Steinhom, 1985).

17

A few writers have addressed clinical issues relevant to lesbian mother
families more speciﬁcally. Markowitz (1991) discussed the emerging importance
of ritual in gay and lesbian families. Joanna Rorhbaugh (1992) addressed issues
unique to lesbian mother families, including maternal competition over providing
and receiving nurturing, beneﬁts discrimination, acceptance by extended family
and lesbian friendship networks. Chambers (1998) and Morton (1998) focused
on the emotional, legal and social implications of lesbian family dissolution.

The writing on general practice issues is essential for the naive or
uninformed practitioner and helps to inform the development of research
questions. However, a small body of literature exists that addresses more
specialized practice arenas or discusses application of social science theory to
practice principles or techniques. Clinical intervention with lesbian mother
families is beginning to gain recognition as a legitimate focus for the practice
community. Speciﬁc family therapy practice techniques such as genograms,
sociograms and family sculpting (Shemoff, 1984), behavioral change tasks
(Baptiste, 1987) and adaptation of conventional couples and family therapy for
lesbian mother families (Ussher, 1991) are important contemporary currents in
the clinical literature. Although most of this clinical writing continues to be
focused on stable and articulate family members Who are voluntarily seeking
treatment, other types of lesbian mother families are beginning to be recognized
as well. Faria (1994), for example, wrote about family preservation with severely

dysfunctional lesbian mother families.

18

Clinical perspectives on lesbian mother families reﬂect both changing
social realities and remarkably stable attitudes toward lesbian mother families. In
a recent, brief review of clinical issues with gay and lesbian families, Charlotte
Patterson (1994) summarized aspects of gay and lesbian family life identiﬁed as
clinically relevant in the practice literature. Her discussion echoed previous
authors’ work that dealt with family relationships, legal and economic issues,
social support and psychological well-being. This relatively recent publication is
noteworthy in that its introduction includes nearly the same discussion of the way
in which "the concept of gay and lesbian families is viewed as an oxymoron" (p.
62) as articles published nearly 20 years earlier.

While relative ignorance about lesbian mother families remains, social
realities seem to be in transition. For example, Pies’ (1987) discussion of social
group work for lesbians contemplating parenting emphasized the relative
isolation in which these families existed. In contrast, Sears (1994) emphasized
the power of institutional policies in creating nurturing environments for these
families and for educating the public about the positive aspects of alternative
family forms. His work outlined anti-harassment guidelines, ideas for developing
curriculum about gay and lesbian families, and proposals for including
appropriate role models in the school environment. As more rigorous and theory-
directed studies of lesbian mothers become common, the literature on clinical
work with these families is likely to become more sophisticated as well as

increasingly useful.

19

The Dew to Pient

In contemporary mainstream family research, decisions about whether or
not to become a parent are often relegated to studies of adolescent sexual
behavior (e.g., Miller & Moore, 1991). In contrast, the writing that examines
decisions made by lesbian individuals and couples to parent constitutes a
signiﬁcant category in the research on lesbian mother families. Pies’ (1988)
landmark book on pathways to lesbian parenting, although written for a lay
audience and published by the lesbian press, heralded an important trend in
social science research on lesbian mother families. Early works included
material on options for becoming a parent, legal issues for lesbian mothers,
dynamics of co-parenting, and family-of-origin reactions to lesbian mother
families. In addition, both Pies (1988, 1989) and Martin (1993) addressed topics
like diversity in family structure, the role of employment and money in parenting
decisions, the impact of children on adult intimate relationships and the role of
gender in lesbians' decisions to parent.

While few of these studies used conventional research to support their
assertions, many theorized about important issues such as how lesbians make
decisions about methods of becoming parents, the interaction between parenting
and lesbian partnerships, and the implications of Work and money for parenting
decisions. Written from a lesbian feminist perspective, Pies’ (1988) work, in
particular, includes material throughout on single lesbians, lesbians of color and
lesbians with disabilities, and has acted as an important catalyst for subsequent

inclusive social science research. Similarly, Weston (1991) skillfully integrated

20

interview narratives with her own observations and insights to describe the
complex of relationships that are understood to constitute ‘family’ as a created
phenomenon within the lesbian and gay community. Weston successfully
articulated the unique unimportance of biology in deﬁning lesbian and gay
families. "Biological relatedness appeared to be a subsidiary option ranged
alongside adoption, co-parenting, and so on, within the dominant framework of
choice that constituted families we create” (p.189). Although limited by both its
methodology and its broad focus, Weston’s research signiﬁcantly focused on
understanding the meanings of lesbians' experiences of parenting, from the
importance of the appearances of their children to the ideology of choice in the
decision to parent.

Kenney and Tash (1992) further developed many of the anecdotal themes
from the early writing on pathways to parenting. Their work culminated in a four-
stage model of the lesbian childbearing experience. In their view, lesbians ﬁrst
must deal with their own projections of the impact of children on their identity,
community relationships and family of origin. Once the decision to conceive is
made, women must explore options for conception, including choices between
using a known or anonymous donor, clinic or home insemination and the use of
assisted insemination or intercourse with a man. Once pregnancy occurs, many
lesbian's primary dilemmas involve deciding whether to deliver the child in the
hospital or in an alternative location, such as at home. In addition, locating a
supportive health care provider who is sensitive to the concerns of the emerging

lesbian family is important. Finally, post-delivery concerns such as co-parenting,

21

partner adoption, and community acceptance are cited as important dilemmas
experienced by lesbians who decide to parent.

The literature on lesbians’ decisions to become mothers outlines several
areas of potential difﬁculty for these families. Rohrbaugh (1989) noted three
themes common to the parenting decisions of lesbians: lesbian identity,
relationships with parents and couples issues. Related to these issues are
problems such as the legal "invisibility" of the co-parent, the role of the donor in
the life of the child, and decisions about coming out to extended family and
employers.

Very recently, studies that explore lesbians’ parenting decisions have
begun to focus on more speciﬁc aspects of the decision-making process. Muzio
(1996) explored the ways in which narrative therapy can inﬂuence lesbian
mother's experience of becoming a family. McCrohan's (1996) analysis of
lesbians’ attitudes toward becoming parents, for example, concluded that, while
nearly one half of her lesbian respondents had seriously considered methods for
becoming parents, partnered lesbians and lesbians who afﬁliate with lesbian
mothers are more likely to choose to become mothers themselves. Not
surprisingly, in this study, community support for lesbian mothers, such as
support groups and information on parenting optiOns, was found to encourage
lesbians to consider parenting.

Research on lesbians' decisions to become parents reveals the complexity
and the potentially painful dilemmas that these decisions can bring. Each author

reviewed here emphasized that these decisions do not occur in a vacuum and

22

that helping professionals play important roles as advocates, advisors, educators
and enablers. Gaps in the research are evident, with the likely result that social
science research and social service provision will continue to be less than
relevant for many lesbian mother families.

Comparative Studies

One way to study lesbian mothers is to contrast them with other parents.
The practice of comparing lesbian mothers with other groups is usually one that
concedes the dominant paradigm. That is, this comparison accepts heterosexual
parenting as normal and, therefore, preferred. Even researchers who
acknowledge the oppressed status of lesbians (Pagelow, 1980) or the
stereotypes reﬂected in problem-oriented research (Harris 8. Turner, 1985) use
the measure-and-compare design, often in response to justice system concerns
about lesbians’ ability to parent. These studies are limited by their focus on the
heterosexual-parenting model. They are included here because they do provide
(sometimes incidentally) relevant information on lesbian mother families.

Most studies that compare lesbian mother families with other family types
ﬁnd that the families are remarkably similar. Like heterosexual single mothers,
lesbians are preoccupied with child custody, housing and employment (Pagelow,
1980). In addition, lesbian mothers have been foUnd to be similar to
heterosexual mothers in terms of: marital history, ﬁnancial status and level of
stress (Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray & Smith, 1986); sex role attitudes and
interactions with children (Harris & Turner, 1985); and, parenting skills and

couples’ relationships (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua & Joseph, 1995). Like gay

23

fathers, lesbians reported high levels of satisfaction, communication, cooperation
and enjoyment of their children (Harris 8. Turner, 1985). In a study of African
American mothers (Hill, 1987), lesbian mothers were found to respond to the
development of independence in their children in much the same way as their
heterosexual counterparts. Neither lesbian nor heterosexual mothers tended to
interfere with the relationships between their children and the children’s fathers.
A notable exception to this parade of similarities is that heterosexual single
mothers sometimes make more of an effort to provide an opposite-sex model for
their children (Harris and Turner, 1985).

Some comparative studies have attempted to highlight the difﬁculties
encountered by lesbian mothers in their daily lives. When compared with
heterosexual single mothers, for example, lesbians perceived higher levels of
oppression in terms of housing, employment, and child custody (Pagelow, 1980).
Not surprisingly, lesbian mothers have been found to have smaller incomes than
their gay male counterparts (Harris & Turner, 1985; Turner, Scadden 8. Harris,
1990). Relationships with ex-spouses and reconciling homosexual identity with
status as parent have been found to be signiﬁcantly more problematic for lesbian
mothers than for gay fathers (Turner, Scadden & Harris, 1990). In all, though,
comparative studies that emphasize the challenges to lesbian mother families
have been relatively rare.

Comparative studies seem to focus on revealing strengths and skills in
lesbian mother families. Pagelow (1980) concluded that the lesbian mothers she

studied used more positive and creative coping strategies than heterosexual

24

mothers did when coping with obstacles to self-sufﬁciency and child custody. In
her sample, lesbian mothers more often showed independence in their work and
social lives by seeking self-employment opportunities. Lesbian mothers also
have been found to be more politically active, to exhibit more self-conﬁdence,
and to seek leadership roles and attention from others more frequently than
heterosexual mothers (Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray 8 Smith, 1986).

Lesbian mothers have also been found to use more ﬂexible child-
socialization practices. In Harris & Turner’s (1985) survey, lesbian mothers were
less likely to encourage sex-stereotyped play and were more likely to perceive
that exposure to the mothers' lesbianism could beneﬁt their children by
increasing the children's empathy, tolerance and open-mindedness. Hill’s (1987)
comparison of African American heterosexual and lesbian mothers found the
lesbian mothers to be more ﬂexible in their parenting style, more accepting of
their children's sexuality and more likely to minimize gender differences between
their male and female children.

Importantly, several of the studies that compared lesbian mothers with
other groups did not consider the relationship status of the lesbian mothers in
analyzing the data. Pagelow (1980) apparently never asked about the
relationship status of her lesbian mother subjects. Harris and Turner (1985) and
Green and colleagues (1986) compared samples of gay and lesbian parents with
heterosexual single parents, even though their demographic proﬁles indicated
that more than half of the homosexual parents lived with a same-sex partner.

For the most part, all three studies attempted to compare lesbian mothers who

25

were previously heterosexually married to divorced heterosexual women. While
these researchers do address the potential effects of divorce as a life event for
mothers and their children, they effectively ignore the existence of lesbian family
structures and support systems that exist outside of the heterosexual model.

Most recently, comparative studies have begun to address the design
limitations of the early studies. For example, Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua and
Joseph (1995) examined lesbians parenting as couples by focusing exclusively
on lesbian couples with children born to them through donor insemination, using
a matched group of heterosexual couples for comparison purposes. The planned
lesbian-couple families were found to be remarkably similar to their heterosexual
counterparts on variables like parents’ relationship quality and parenting skill.
Interestingly, the lesbian couples were found to be more aware of parenting skills
than their heterosexual counterparts. Since women in this study scored higher
than men on this variable regardless of sexual orientation, the authors attribute
the ﬁnding to gender rather than to sexual orientation.
We

A substantial body of literature addresses the family circumstances
experienced by lesbians in general, but few studies speciﬁcally focused on the
experiences of lesbian mother families until recently. Throughout the past
decade, studies of lesbian mother families have acknowledged that, whether
their children join the family in heterosexual or lesbian contexts, lesbian mother
families exhibit unique family structures and processes. As was seen in the

review of comparative studies, recent research marks a signiﬁcant departure

26

from early studies of lesbian mother families by acknowledging the partner status
of lesbian co-parents and by avoiding the potential confounding variables of
divorce, step parenting, and custody arrangements through sampling methods.
This section summarizes social science literature that addresses family
structures and processes, family blending, satisfaction, and the impact of
ecological variables on lesbian mother families.

Becoming a parent can have substantial impact on the lives of lesbians,
whether single or coupled. McCandlish (1987) reported on the shifting patterns
of child caring in lesbians couples with newborn babies. She noted that birth
mothers in her study were more likely to assume primary care in early months,
while non-biological mothers’ roles increased when the children reached their
ﬁrst birthdays. McCandlish also reported on the reduction in sexual intimacy
experienced by new mothers in her sample. In another study of early parenting,
Stiglitz (1990) found that, like heterosexual couples, lesbian birth mothers
reported dissatisfaction with increased dependency in the relationship. In Stiglitz”
sample, non-biological mothers complained of being left out of early mother-child
bonding. Again, both partners reported signiﬁcant decreases in sexual contact
and emotional intimacy. Stiglitz highlighted the inadequacy of the heterosexual
model for predicting the impact of parenting in lesbian mother families, citing
important differences in the relationship dynamics of lesbian couples and
heterosexual pairs.

Several studies have addressed relationship satisfaction, division of

household labor, and attitudes toward parenting in lesbian mother couples.

27

Patterson's (1995) work explored the relationship between childbearing and
allocation of household responsibilities and between division of labor and
satisfaction of lesbian mother couples. Unlike similar heterosexual couples,
lesbian couples shared household tasks and decision making almost equally,
although lesbian biological mothers were more involved in childcare while lesbian
co-parents worked more hours outside the home. The couples reported
relatively high levels of relationship satisfaction. Lesbian couples who shared
child care tasks more evenly showed particular beneﬁts, including greater
satisfaction for the biological mothers and better psychosocial adjustment for the
children. Patterson’s results conﬁrmed other studies (Hand, 1991; Osterweil,
1991) in which relationship satisfaction and chore equality were quite high in
parenting lesbian couples.

Several studies grounded in feminist theory have examined the impact of
the social environment on lesbian mother families. These studies suggest that
the oppressive and threatening circumstances surrounding lesbian mother
families induce many women to challenge the dominant culture through
purposive individual and group behaviors. For example, Ainslie and Feltey
(1991) found that lesbian mothers encouraged their children to recognize and
explore options to conventional gender roles and Ways of relating to others in the
children’s environments. Similarly, Lott-Whitehead and Tully’s (1993)
respondents reported that their efforts to maintain the integrity of their non-
traditional family forrn is a vital function of the lesbian parenting role. Lesbian

mothers in their sample were highly conscious of threats to child custody,

28

inequity in parental rights, and the need for discretion in self-disclosure about
their lesbianism.

Lack of recognition as a family is a major source of stress for lesbian
mothers (Hare, 1994). Lott-Whitehead and Tully (1993) found that lesbian
mothers experienced the highest degree of stress in those parts of their
environments over which they had little control (eg. schools). Lesbian mothers
who were comfortably out of the closet, who received the support of extended
family, and who lived in environments perceived as socially liberal reported lower
levels of family stress.

Data about the impact of race on lesbian mother families is very rare.
Greene (1990) proposed that the high levels of stress experienced by African
American lesbian mothers may increase isolation and decrease the effectiveness
of their child-rearing activities. She summarized the difficult and contradictory
context in which African American lesbians rear their children. "In addition to the
challenges that all Black mothers face in child-rearing, Black lesbian mothers
must manage the additional stress of coping with the Black and White
communities’ homophobia, which is intensiﬁed by the heterosexual and
homosexual communities’ expressions of racism” (p. 211). Greene highlighted
the powerful contradictory messages of heteroseXism and racism in American
culture. Because of exposure to such messages, African American lesbian
mothers may worry that they will conﬁrm stereotypes about non-white mothers,
or losing custody of their children if they admit to parent-child conﬂict or

ambivalence about parenting.

29

As Greene pointed out, lesbian mother families are impacted by the
lesbian community, as well as by mainstream culture and expectations. For
white lesbians, the impact of motherhood may be segregation within their own
communities. For example, respondents in Lott-Whitehead and Tully’s (1993)
study reported experiencing a lack of support from within the lesbian community.
They attributed the lack of support to a segment of women who they described
as "anti-family, anti-children" (p. 276). Actions and perceptions of the lesbian
community were important themes in family life. Ainslie and Feltey (1991) found
that lesbian mothers were impacted by the role of a friendship network, which
provided instrumental and emotional support. Their study also highlighted by
ways in which political beliefs, especially feminism, structured lesbian family and
community interactions. Ainslie and Feltey’s study, in particular, transcended the
individualism that marked many related studies because it translated information
about lesbian mothers into data about lesbian mother communities.

Lott-Whitehead and Tully (1993) used an ecological perspective when
examining the reciprocal relationships between lesbian mothers and their
environments. Their work revealed several signiﬁcant strengths in the lesbian
families they studied, including openness about differences, importance of
nurturing and respect for children, and commitment to the family. Hare’s (1994)
interviews of lesbian mothers reinforced the notion that lesbians are committed to
their families. Interestingly, parenting lesbian couples in Hare’s study revealed
that they identiﬁed more strongly with heterosexual parenting couples than with

child-free lesbians.

30

Each of the studies mentioned in this review provides a glimpse into the
individual, family, and community experiences of lesbians and their children.
None, however, provides a comprehensive look at these families. Ethnographic
research is unique in its ability to provide a more vivid impression of the realities
of lesbian mother families. Weston's (1991) groundbreaking ethnographic study
of lesbian and gay families used the narratives of her respondents to deﬁne her
research. In this way, she opened the door to a deeper understanding of
complex relationships within lesbian mother families and between lesbian
mothers and the social environment. Although lesbian mothering was not the
focus of her book, Weston discussed cultural expectations for parenting, gender
in lesbian mother families, the role of non-biological mothers, and the reactions of
families of origin to parenting by lesbians.

Lewin (1993) used a comparative model, embedded in an ethnographic
design, to examine the themes and images of lesbian motherhood. The result is
a detailed picture of the meaning of motherhood in these families. As with
previous comparative studies, similarities between lesbian mother families and
single heterosexual-mother families were evident, including ﬁnancial worries,
managing a household, ﬁnding child care, and dealing with pressures from
family, friends and the work place. Beyond the pragmatics of daily life, though,
Lewin concluded that lesbian mothers share an essential quality with other
mothers in American culture. "My ﬁndings show not that lesbian mothers
resemble heterosexual mothers in a way that minimizes the importance of their

lesbianism but that lesbian mothers, like other mothers, share in the system of

31

meaning that envelopes motherhood in our culture" (p. 182). With its focus on
“the ambiguities, areas of overlap, and occasional blurring of boundaries
between gay/lesbian and heterosexual experience” (p. 181), Lewin’s work stands
as a model of qualitative research with lesbian mothers.

The most recent book-length work on lesbian mother families goes even
further to explore the complexities of same-sex parenting. Wright (1998)
intensively interviewed ﬁve lesbian step families to uncover how they negotiate
the intersections of sexual orientation, parenting and family blending. Wright
noted that lesbian step families confront gendered models of parenting by
successfully carrying out roles traditionally labeled ’mothering’ and ‘fathen'ng’
without respect to the gender of the parents, and by modeling egalitarianism to
their children. In addition, Wright concluded that chronic, subtle acts of ‘erasure,’
such as being left out of extended family activities, constitute a powerful stressor
for lesbian mother families. Although a small study, her work addresses some of
the deﬁcits of larger studies that failed to acknowledge the heterosexist gestalt in
which the respondents lived. Her work heralds a new wave of research that
acknowledges both the variability and the complexity of lesbian mother families.

Much of the literature on lesbian family life remains descriptive, and
methodology and sampling strategies restrict the generalizeability of results.
Nevertheless, these studies reveal the rich and unique nature of this particular
family form. In general, the literature reviewed here hinted at the strengths and
successes of lesbian mothers, while emphasizing that social, legal, economic

and other factors distinguished these families from other, more mainstream

32

family conﬁgurations. Besides providing information on family structure and
processes, these studies highlight the ambiguities experienced by non-biological
mothers, the role of family of origin and community in ongoing support of the
lesbian mother family, and the unique ways in which the presence of children
impacts the lesbian couple’s relationship.
B_e_§earch Questions

This review of the literature reveals that research about lesbian mothers
has begun to shift from a focus on deviance and pathology to the identiﬁcation of
unique structures and strengths. The deﬁcit model used in the past several
decades engendered research that highlighted potential individual, interpersonal,
institutional and socio-cultural obstacles for lesbian mothers. More recently,
researchers have suggested ways in which lesbian mothers share traits with
heterosexual parents. Although a general outline of lesbian family life is
suggested by the research, the ways in which lesbian mothers frame their
interactions with their families and communities in light of their unique
circumstances are just beginning to be explored. Relatively little is known about
how lesbian mothers cope with their responsibilities as parents, partners,
workers, and community members. Still less is known about the particular
innovations, successes and potentials of lesbian mother families in the contexts
of their own communities.

Because researchers have only recently adopted a strengths perspective
with this population, potential research questions abound. The ﬁeld of social

work is fundamentally oriented toward research that is relevant to practice and

33

policy applications, particularly where such applications deal with the intersection
between individuals and their environments. The intent of this study, then, is to
produce knowledge that is both consistent with the mission of social work and
relevant to the lives of the respondents themselves.

This study is fundamentally rooted in a strengths perspective and rests on
the assumption that diversity of family type may lead to unique and positive
family experiences. The following questions provide the foundation for this study:

. What are the characteristics of relationships within lesbian mother
families?
. What are the characteristics of relationships between lesbian mother

families and institutions in the social environment?

Chapter 2

METHODS

This study was a systematic, in-depth exploration of lesbian mother
families’ relationships. Throughout the study, data collection focused on current
interactions, the impact of noteworthy events in the past, and perceptions of
everyday or routine exchanges within lesbian mother families and between
families and their social environments.

A qualitative research design provided the foundation of this study. The
intent of this study was to emphasize differences and similarities among
respondents and to provide a glimpse of reality as experienced by a particular
group of women (Relnharz, 1992). This study aimed for complex and detailed
understanding of the perceived stressors and supports experienced by a
particular group of women in a unique geographic, socio-political and historic
location, as articulated by the women themselves. In reporting the data, themes
and issues derived from the analysis were illustrated by direct quotes and
paraphrases. Where quantitative data were collected, descriptive analyses were
used to summarize the characteristics ofthe respondent sample in order to
provide a context for the interview data. No attempt was made to generalize the
results of the analysis, nor were comparisons attempted between these
respondents and other groups. The following sections detail the process by

which this project was accomplished.

35

HumﬂSubiects Clearance

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRHIS) approved this study. All respondents were asked to read and sign a
written statement of informed consent before completing either a survey
questionnaire or a face-to-face interview. Participants were informed of the
voluntary nature of the study, the project’s purpose, conﬁdentiality protections,
and the researchers contact information. See Appendix A for UCRIHS
documents.

In order to assure that no one except the researcher had access to the
identities of the interview participants, questionnaire respondents were assigned
identiﬁcation numbers and interview participants were given pseudonyms.
Quantitative data from this study are presented in aggregate form. Qualitative
data were carefully edited for identifying information before direct quotations
were used in the ﬁnal report.

Segmengnd SW

Respondents for this study were recruited using a modiﬁed snowball
sampling method. That is, potential clusters of participants were identiﬁed and
contacted for the purpose of completing questionnaires. Women who were
approached in this way were also encouraged to contact other lesbian mothers
known to them and to distribute additional questionnaires.

Outreach and questionnaire distribution began in December 1998. In-
depth qualitative interviews took place between March and June 1999. Initial

attempts to engage respondents for this study consisted of direct distribution of

36

survey questionnaires to lesbian mother support groups, advertisement in a
statewide publication aimed at the lesbian community and recruitment by word of
mouth. The initial response to questionnaire distribution was very low (return
rate less than 10%), probably because the timing of the initial effort coincided
with the winter holidays. Shortly after the New Year, I renewed distribution
efforts by making telephone and/or email contact with lesbian community
centers, lesbian and lesbian mother support organizations, women’s bookstores,
and religious communities identiﬁed as welcoming to lesbians. These initial
contacts were focused on distributing information about the study, explaining its
purpose and requesting permission to send questionnaires for distribution to
potential respondents. A packet of questionnaires was then sent to each
organization, with a cover letter describing the researcher and the project.
Organizations then distributed the questionnaires directly to lesbian mothers.
(See Appendix B for sample cover letter.)

In addition to telephone, electronic, and regular mail contact, I attempted
to distribute questionnaire through more traditional methods within the women’s
community. For example, I set up a table to distribute questionnaires at a
women’s music concert, and I wrote a brief newsletter article focusing on lesbian
mothers for an organization working for civil rights for lesbians and gay men.
Approximately two hundred questionnaires were distributed in participant packets
at a conference for lesbian and gay activists sponsored by a major university. In
addition, an advertisement was placed in a major metropolitan alternative

newspaper's on-line classiﬁed section. Appendix C contains a sample press

37

release. Each of these activities generated respondents directly and through
word-of-mouth following the events. Telephone and email requests for
information about the project and for questionnaires increased after each effort at
recruitment.

All distribution efforts included attention to recruitment of single mothers,
racial / ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged lesbians. To this end, I
made outreach to agencies and organizations in both metropolitan and rural
areas where groups of poor women and women of color were likely to be found.
In addition, I worded recruitment and outreach literature to include women who
were single. These attempts were not always successful. Multiple efforts to
partner with the state’s largest gay and lesbian community center, for example,
were met with disinterest and reluctance. On the other hand, I successfully
coordinated questionnaire distribution with a large metropolitan university’s
annual conference on lesbian and gay rights with a signiﬁcant attendance by
African American women.

I did not expect or intend to secure a truly representative sample by race,
ethnicity, class, or any other variable. Nearly all studies of lesbian mothers are
characterized by respondent samples that are disproportionately white and
middle-class (Parks, 1998). While representative studies .aLe, needed, the
resource constraints of this project prevented me from successfully pursuing
respondents who are less likely to volunteer for the study.

All questionnaires, except those distributed at the concert and conference,

had stamped, retum-addressed envelopes attached. For the concert and

38

conference, a sealed box was provided for return of completed questionnaires,
and stamped envelopes were available for potential respondents to pick up from
the return table. In all, approximately 530 questionnaires were distributed. A
total of 125 (23.8%) questionnaires were returned. All were usable for this study.

In all, 102 (81.6%) included contact information indicating the respondent
was willing to participate in a face-to-face interview. Potential interviewees were
sorted into groups according to the age of the oldest child living in the home, then
21 women were selected for contact based on family type (for example, intact vs.
blended or adoptive vs. birth), location of primary residence, class, and race I
ethnicity of mother(s) and children. All of the women contacted were willing to be
interviewed, and every interview attempted was completed.

A detailed description of the sample and of the interview sub-sample is
provided in Chapter 3.

uestionnaire

The survey questionnaire distributed to respondents gathered
demographic data about the individual respondent and her family. The
questionnaire asked about race / ethnicity, age, income, occupation, education,
religious afﬁliation, partnering and living arrangement with partner, and
geographic location of the respondent’s primary residence. In addition, data
about respondents’ children were collected, including sex, age, race I ethnicity,
grade in school, childcare and living arrangements. In addition, information on
how each child became a member of the lesbian mother family (e.g. birth,

adoption) was collected. Appendix D contains the questionnaire.

39

Each individual completing a questionnaire was given the opportunity to
volunteer for a face-to-face interview by indicating her interest and furnishing
contact information on the returned questionnaire. Each volunteer wrote her
name, address, and telephone number on the ﬁnal page of the questionnaire,
which was numbered and separated from the questionnaire upon receipt to
preserve the anonymity of respondents.

Interview Procedures

A sub-sample of 21 women participated in face-to-face semi-structured
interviews. Each interview followed a protocol which focused on the completion
of a family / support system eco map for the respondent (Figure 1). Appendix E
contains the protocol. The eco map and interview protocol were adapted from a
study of heterosexual—parent families (Harold, Mercier & Colarossi, 1997), in
which parents were interviewed for information on their relationships with
environmental supports.

For this study, a list of interview questions and probes were developed
from the literature and revised based on initial questionnaire responses.
Interview topics included:

0 A description of the relationships between the respondent and her primary
family (partner and child/children)
. Respondent’s reactions to or feelings about the relationships within the family,

including relationship satisfaction

40

. A description of the relationship between the respondent's family and each of
several identiﬁed social systems (family of origin, work place, school, religion,
medical, court I justice, social services, child care, friends)

. A description of the relationship between the respondent’s family and any
other social systems identiﬁed by the respondent, including relationship
satisfaction

. Respondent’s reaction to or feelings about the relationships with social
systems and institutions, including relationship satisfaction

Interviewees were asked to focus on both sources of stress and sources of

support in the relationships described during the interviews.

Dr. Rena Harold and I conducted all of the interviews for this study. At the
outset, we were familiar with the methodology employed for this study because
we participated in an earlier study with heterosexual-parent families that used an
eco-map interview methodology very similar to the one utilized here (Harold,
Mercier & Colarossi, 1997). For that study, we participated in extensive research
and training related to qualitative interviewing, completed exercises designed to
increase skills in conducting interviews, and received peer feedback on
interviews conducted in the ﬁeld. Such experience has resulted in our familiarity
with the fundamentals of qualitative research techniques, including the use of
rapport-building, open-ended questions, directed probing of core material, and
ﬂexibility in interview style. When the lesbian mother research project was

conceptualized, we jointly revised the eco-map and interview protocol to improve

its relevance for the lesbian mother population.

41

All interviews were face-to-face. Interviewer — participant matches were
primarily made on the basis of geographic proximity and schedule. In a few
cases, an interviewer — participant match was made in order to avoid a dual
relationship, as when one of the participants had a pre-existing instructor! student
relationship with the researcher. Most of the participants elected to be
interviewed in their homes or work places, although ﬁve of the 21 (23.8%)
volunteered to be interviewed at the university for reasons of convenience or
conﬁdentiality.

Typically, interview respondents were highly motivated to participate and
easy to engage, so rapport building was simple. In about half of the cases,
participants offered a tour of the family home. Such tours usually included a look
at all rooms of the house, including bedrooms and bathrooms. Most also
included an explanation of the family’s home improvement projects; painting,
furniture reﬁnishing, and organizational projects were common with these
families. In addition, most participants showed the interviewers photographs of
their children if the children were not present. Several participants asked if the
interviewer was a lesbian mother (both interviewers answered in the afﬁrmative),
and this area of common experience was used to build rapport in the interview
process.

For interviews that took place at the university, care was taken to include a
rapport-building phase into the process. Participants were offered coffee or soft

drinks. In every case, a period of informal conversation preceded the recorded

interview.

42

After initial introductions and rapport building, the interviews moved into a
more formalized phase. The interviewer and participant sat at a table, most often
in the dining room or kitchen of the participant’s home. At the university,
interviews took place in a private ofﬁce. In most cases, interviewer and
participant sat relatively close together, sometimes side-by-side, so that the
participant could see the eco map and other materials as she spoke. Interviews
lasted between one hour and three hours, with an average length of nearly two
hours. Breaks were taken as requested by the participants.

Before beginning each interview, the participant was asked to read and
sign a statement of informed consent. A separate, additional signature indicated
her consent to be audio taped. All respondents signed consent forms.

During each interview, the respondent completed an eco map by selecting
and drawing a series of lines, chosen from a key printed on the eco map. The
lines, which depicted the primary characteristics of the interactions in the
respondent’s relationships, are labeled ‘relationship types’ throughout this study.

The interviewer began each eco map by drawing a genogram of the
respondent’s family in the ‘household’ circle on the eco map. For the genogram,
lines selected by the participant connected each member of the household with
all other members. No interviewee had more than four children, so the maximum
number of relationships within the household circle was 15. For the remainder of
the eco map, lines depicting relationship type connected the household with each
system in the social environment. Some respondents did not have relationships

with every type of system printed on the eco map, and so did not indicate line

43

types for those systems. Similarly, some respondents added systems to the eco
map and so indicated additional lines.

In addition to naming types of relationships, each interview participant was
asked to choose a number on a 7-point anchored scale to reﬂect their current
satisfaction with each relationship described. Scale values ranged from one
(very dissatisﬁed) to seven (perfectly satisﬁed); the number four was labeled
‘moderately satisﬁed’ on the interview materials. Throughout the remainder of
this study, numbers selected by the respondents in this way are labeled
‘satisfaction levels.’

Each eco map, then, yielded a concise summary of perceived
relationships within and around the respondent’s family. In addition to simpliﬁed
measures of relationship type and satisfaction levels, in-depth information about
the respondents’ relationships was explored. Data from the interviews were
documented directly onto the eco maps, as well as by the interviewer’s notes and
audio tape recordings. Written notes of the interview focused on themes
articulated by the respondents, examples of stress or support in the environment
and rich descriptions of relationships within and around the families.
Interviewers’ notes included content summaries, verbatim recording of
statements, notes on non-verbal communication, and key words or phrases used
during the interviews. These notes were checked with and veriﬁed by the
respondents during the interviews, and in one instance, by telephone after the

interview.

As expected with any qualitative study, some reﬁnement of the interview
questions and probes occurred during the interview phase of the project. In
addition, because of the qualitative nature of the study, the protocol guided the
interviews but many other topics and issues arose and were addressed with
respondents. For example, many participants provided historical data, particularly
about coming out as lesbian, which was peripherally related to the study, but not
directly covered in the protocol. The ﬂexibility of this approach conformed to
feminist research methods that privilege interviewees’ determinations of relevant
material and emphasizes respondents’ guidance of the research process
(Reinharz, 1992).

Data Analysis

This entire research project, from the design of the questionnaire to the
analysis plan, was guided by principles of feminist epistemology. Such principles
address issues important to an understanding of women in the social world, and
then to move from understanding to planning for social change as an integral part
of the research process (Fonow & Cook, 1991). Data analysis emphasized
material that has meaning in the everyday world. Conclusions are focused on
applications of new knowledge for the beneﬁt of the respondents themselves.

Data were analyzed in two phases. First, data from the questionnaire
were encoded and entered into a computerized database program (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences 8.0.0 for Windows 95) to facilitate reporting
aggregate demographic information for the entire sample of questionnaire

respondents. When analyzing family-level data, it was necessary to control for

45

 

 

duplication of responses by partners in families where both members of a couple
had completed surveys. Family-level analysis was performed on data from one
member of each couple who had been randomly selected to represent the family.
The results of quantitative analyses are reported in Chapter 3.

Although the demographic data reveal important information about the
questionnaire respondents, the focus of this study was on the rich descriptive
material gathered during the 21 intensive individual interviews. The second
phase of data analysis was qualitative, and focused on organizing and
understanding this information. The ﬁrst part of the qualitative analysis involved
analyzing the diagrammed eco maps. For the sub-sample of interview
respondents, the relationship types and satisfaction levels selected by
respondents for the eco maps were coded and entered into a database program
(SPSS). Frequencies and means provide an overview of selected areas of the
interviews, and are presented in both Chapters 4 and 5.

The plan for analyzing the narrative data in this study replicated a process
developed in a similar study with heterosexual-parent families (Harold, Palmiter,
Lynch, Freedman-Doan 8 Eccles, under contract). This process utilized an
interactive model of analysis, in which deductive and inductive approaches to
analysis work together to produce richly detailed descriptive data, as well as new
concepts and hypotheses (Strauss 8 Corbin, 1990). Initially, interview data were
coded into classifications determined by the major divisions on the eco maps
(e.g. relationships between respondents and their partners, or relationships

between households and school systems). Categories, or sub-classiﬁcations,

46

were then derived from the content of the material within each classiﬁcation. The
categories were based on the comments of the respondents themselves, as well
as on themes suggested by the social science literature. Finally, themes within
categories were identiﬁed by examining the meanings of interviewees”
responses.

For example, all data related to relationships within the household circle
were coded into the family classiﬁcation. Categories within family data were then
determined by examination of the data and by review of the social science
literature. One such category in this study was the relationship between the
respondent and her partner. Themes between partners included the women’s
focus on communication and the perceived importance of couples’ shared
interest the family.

Because of the volume and complexity of the qualitative data gathered in
the interviews, in-depth analysis of selected relationships within and around
respondent families was limited. Following initial examination of the data, I
identiﬁed three classiﬁcations on which to focus analysis of the qualitative data.
The classiﬁcations included the intra-family relationships and two types of
relationships between the respondent households and their social environments
(children’s schools and parents’ work). These claSsiﬁcations were selected for
their relevance to social work practice and policy, and because of my interest in
the areas. Several other classiﬁcations of data would have yielded important

results as well.

47

Results from the qualitative analysis of the intra-family data are presented
in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the results of the analysis on the relationships

between lesbian mother families and the social environment.

48

Chapter 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

The lesbian mothers who responded to the survey questionnaire provided
a great deal of information about their personal identities, family compositions,
and personal backgrounds. They shared a variety of important characteristics, as
well as having divergent histories, resources and personal circumstances. This
summary highlights participants’ individual diversity, as well as trends in the data
that suggest group characteristics and sample limitations. In general, the
following sections summarize the descriptive data so as to provide a framework
for the interview data presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

GeneraL Overview of the Respondents

The 125 women who returned questionnaires for this study ranged in age
from 24 to 58 years, with a mean age of 41 .5 years (S_D=7.18). All had children,
although not all respondents had children currently living in their homes. Some
of the women who returned questionnaires were partnered with each other
(n=70); thus the number of families represented in these data is 90.

Nearly all of the women (99.2%, n=122) reported their sexual orientations
as mostly or exclusively lesbian on a seven-point anchored scale. (One
respondent reported her orientation as closest to bisexual. She was included in
this analysis because she also reported being in a partnered relationship with a
woman for more than ten years.) Similarly, nearly all of the respondents (97 %,

n=121) reported that they did n_o_t consider themselves to be transgendered.

49

(One respondent identiﬁed as transgendered and was included in the analysis
because she described herself as exclusively lesbian and was actively parenting
with her female partner of several years.)

Race. Ed_ucation and Income

While most women in this sample were Caucasian, ten percent (n=13) of
the respondents were women of color. Racial /ethnic minority respondents
included women who were African American (5.6%), biracial (4.0%), and Asian
American (0.8%). Most respondents had very high levels of education and
household income. Table 1 summarizes data on race, household income and
highest level of education achieved for the overall sample. It also highlights
these demographics for the interview sub-sample discussed in detail in Chapters
4 and 5.

Closer examination of their social demographics highlights the unique
characteristics of the survey sample. For example, while less than 20% of adults
in Michigan have completed a four year college degree (State of Michigan Ofﬁce
of Management and Budget, 1990), nearly three-quarters (74.4%, n=93) of
women completing questionnaires reported education at the Bachelor degree
level or higher. Of those with college degrees, 54 women (43.2%) had graduate
degrees.

Similarly, household income data reveal that these respondents enjoyed
higher levels of household income than the state median of around $31,000 per
household (State of Michigan Ofﬁce of Management and Budget, 1990). In the

survey sample, 31 families (34.8%) had household incomes ranging from less

50

than $12,000 to $50,000 per year, while 58 families (65.2%) had incomes over
$50,000. Most of the families represented in these data (70.0%, n=63) had two
or more sources of income. Only a quarter of the families (25.6%, =23)
received child support, and less than 7% (n=6) received any type of public
assistance.

Occupation

The majority of the women who responded to the questionnaire worked
full-time outside of the home, although a sizeable minority (29.0%, n=36)
reported work schedules that diverged from the standard 40 hour per week job.
Only 10 women (8.1%) described themselves as stay-at-home mothers. Table 2
summarizes the data on participation in the work force and career ﬁelds for
questionnaire respondents and interview subjects.

Respondents reported their current primary occupations or their career
ﬁelds if they were students or were not currently employed. Occupations varied
considerably within the group. Fields of employment included those considered
to be ‘traditional’ for women, such as nursing and clerical work, as well as ﬁelds
thought to be ‘non-traditional’ for women, such as construction and law
enforcement. In addition, as might be expected with such an educated group,
professional and managerial work careers were well represented.

Analysis of occupation data included sorting reported occupations into
categories by career ﬁeld. While meaningful categorization of occupations could
have occurred in a number of ways, all methods of sorting used in this analysis

resulted in high numbers of women in the human services or social services ﬁeld.

51

In fact, more than half of the 115 women who reported their occupations could be
considered to be involved or interested in careers associated with helping others,
regardless of their levels of education or professional training. A total of 75
women (65.2%) reported occupations in the human services, health, education
and law ﬁelds, areas that require high levels of interpersonal interaction and often
involve special skills in providing client support. Further discussion of
respondents' employment and occupation data is covered in Chapter 5.
Geggraghic Distribution

Respondents’ primary residences were located throughout 22 different
counties in Michigan. Figure 2 shows primary residence of respondent families
by county. While geographic distribution of the sample was primarily in the
southern half of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, respondent families lived in diverse
community environments. That is, lesbian mothers from urban, suburban and
rural areas responded to the questionnaire and volunteered to be interviewed. In
general, most respondents were in urban or suburban areas, although many
families lived in areas with no formal or organized lesbian community. As
indicated in Figure 2, more than 40 percent of respondents (n=52) lived outside
of the Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Detroit metropolitan areas, and
thus had limited access to the bulk of gay and lesbian resources in the state. For
some families, such as those living in Schoolcraft and Clare Counties, there are

n_o services within county borders targeted speciﬁcally to lesbians.

52

BEIJQiO—n

The lesbian mothers who participated in this study reported diverse
religious afﬁliations. Table 3 summarizes data related to respondents’ religious
afﬁliations and levels of participation in churches, synagogues, and other
religious organizations. While about a quarter of the women (n=32) cited no
religious afﬁliation, more than half identiﬁed as Protestant. Catholic and Jewish
women also responded to the survey questionnaire. Interestingly, six
respondents (4.9%) identiﬁed with paganNViccan, earth-centered or Native
American traditions and three others mentioned these spiritual traditions as
secondary afﬁliations.

Level of religious participation also highlighted respondent diversity.
Approximately one third of the respondents (n=40) reported attendance at
religious activities once or twice per year or less, one third (n=41) participated
once per week or oftener, and one third (n=42) fell in between these extremes.
Relationship status

Nearly all of the women in this sample (n = 115, 92.0%) were currently in
relationships with female partners. Figure 3 summarizes length of relationship as
reported by partnered respondents. The reported lengths of relationships ranged
from 6 months to 20 years, with the mean length cf relationship around 8 years
(M=7.89, §Q=5.50). Variance across this variable was high, and reﬂected the
respondents’ diverse ages, as well as suggesting variability in life histories and

relationships. Forty percent (n=32) of partnered couples reported being together

53

ﬁve years or less, 30% (n=24) had been together between ﬁve and ten years,
and 30% (n=24) reported relationships over ten years in length.

Most of the 117 partnered women responding to the questionnaires (n =
109, 87.2%) lived with their partners. Table 4 summarizes data on relationship
status for respondents and the interview sub sample. Two of the eight women
listed as ‘partnered but living separately’ explained that they had lived with their
female partners for several years in the past, but now lived separately out of
necessity; one respondent’s partner took care of an elderly mother during the
week, and another respondent’s partner was away at school. Finally, one
woman described herself as a widow, since her female partner had died after
many years in a committed relationship.
Level of Support for Respondent SeiLal Orienta_tjr_>p

The women responding to the questionnaire were asked to mark
categories of people representing those who knew about the respondent’s
identity as lesbian or bisexual. Table 5 shows categories of people to whom
respondents had disclosed sexual orientation. Overall, respondents reported
being quite open about sexual orientation. In fact, all respondents indicated that
they were out about their sexual orientation in at least three areas of their social
environments (or to at least three categories of people). Most women (84.8%)
named 10 or more categories of people. The mean number of categories named
was 12.5 (SD=3.13).

In order to measure the extent to which respondents had access to social

support, as well as the potential for discrimination based on sexual orientation, I

analyzed data on persons to who knew that respondents were lesbian. A
composite index of ‘outness’ was created for each respondent. Only those
categories applicable to each respondent were counted in the analysis of survey
data. For example, if a woman indicated that she did not have a brother to come
out to, that woman was not included in the category-speciﬁc analysis for
brothers. For each woman, I determined the proportion of her applicable social
network to whom she was out as lesbian. The composite value was a mean
proportion for the sample of 69.5%, with proportions ranging from 15% to 89%.

For each category, more than 65% of the respondents indicated that
someone in that role knew that the respondent was lesbian or bisexual. Friends,
children, sisters and mothers were particularly likely to be named as categories
of people to whom the respondents had come out.

Respondents also were asked to indicate which people in their social
environments were most supportive and least supportive regarding their sexual
orientation. The respondents indicated that they received support and
acceptance about sexual orientation from many people in their environments. All
but one respondent reported at least one person who was supportive; the
number of categories of supportive people ranged up to 16. The mean number
of ‘most supportive’ people reported was close to ﬁve (LII=4.78, §Q=3.94).
Several women noted on the questionnaires that they felt supported by everyone
to whom they were out of the closet. Friends, sisters, mothers, religious leaders,

and children were most often named as ‘most supportive” by the respondents.

55

Interestingly, friends, sisters, mothers and children were also named as most
often aware on the respondents’ sexual orientation.

The data on ‘most supportive’ people contrasted with results on categories
of people who were identiﬁed as “least supportive.’ The mean number of ‘Ieast
supportive’ categories was close to one (M=1.25, §Q=1.12). The total number of
‘Ieast supportive' categories of people cited ranged up to ﬁve. Thirty respondents
indicated that no one in their environments was unsupportive enough to be
named on the questionnaire. Children’s fathers and respondents’ fathers were
chosen most frequently as ‘least supportive’ (28.6% and 25.0% respectively).
Table 5 summarizes data on ‘most supportive’ and ‘least supportive’ persons
selected by the respondents.

Overview of Respondents’ Children

The women responding to the questionnaire reported a total of 197
children. Males represented 53.1% of the sample and females represented
46.9%. Table 6 shows sex, age and grade in school for all children reported by
respondents. The children ranged in age from 2 weeks to 40 years old. The
greatest numbers of children were in the youngest age groups, and nearly three
quarters of the children reported (n=144) were age 18 or younger. Figure 4
shows the age distribution of the respondents’ chﬂdren.

The interview portion of this study sought to identify families with children
in three age ranges corresponding with early childhood (0-5 years), elementary
or middle childhood (6-12 years), and adolescence (13-18 years). Substantial

numbers of children were reported for each of these age groups. About half

56

(n=92) of the children were enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Nearly a
quarter (n=48) were not yet enrolled in school, while the rest either attended
college (n=15) or were adults and no longer in school (n=39).

Children’s Race

Data on children’s racial and ethnic identities provided an interesting
glimpse into issues of family composition for this sample of respondents. Table 7
summarizes the racial / ethnic data reported for respondents’ children. As a
group, the children were more racially diverse than were the lesbians raising
them. That is, questionnaire data showed a larger proportion of children of color
(27.9%) as compared with adult respondents of color (10.4%). Speciﬁcally,
much higher percentages of African American (10.7%) and biracial (12.2%)
children were reported than were found in the sample of mothers (5.6% and
4.0% respectively). In addition, seven children were identiﬁed as Hispanic and
Native American, although none of their mothers identiﬁed themselves as
members of these racial lethnic groups.

The unexpected and disproportionate ethnic I racial diversity in the sample
of children prompted several questions for analysis. More than half (57.1%) of
the 21 couples who described themselves as ‘white’ reported raising children
belonging to racial I ethnic groups other than ‘white. An additional four families
(19%) that were raising children of color were headed by mixed race I ethnicity
couples in which only one of the women was identiﬁed as white. Partners who

were both women of color headed ﬁve families (24%) that were raising children

of color

57

Respondent Family Si_ze and Living Arrangements

The lesbian mothers in the survey sample reported raising from one to
seven children in their families. The average number of children reported per
family was two. Overall, family size was moderate, although household size for
the sample ranged from one to eight individuals. More than 40 % of the families
in the sample reported that a total of three people lived in their home at the time
of the survey.

Children’s living arrangements varied Widely, as is suggested by their age
range and the data on household size. Table 8 details living arrangements for all
children in the sample. Each respondent reported on the number of her children
who lived in various arrangements at home and away from home. Most
households (81%, n=73) reported at least one child living with the lesbian mother
full time, thus accounting for a total of 123 children (62.4%) who lived with their
lesbian mothers full time. Markedly fewer families reported children who lived out
of the respondents’ homes. Eleven percent (n=10) of families reported at least
one child who lived with someone else half time. These 10 families included 12
children who lived half time with their lesbian mothers and half time with their
(children’s) fathers. Also included in this group is the grandchild of a lesbian
grandmother who is cared for half of the time by her grandmother and half of the
time by the child’s father (the respondent’s son). Six families (7%) reported
having children who lived with them less than half time. These families included
six children with a variety of living arrangements, including shared custody with

former female partners. Twenty-ﬁve families (27.8%) included children who did

58

not live with the respondents at all. These 52 children were mostly adults, but
the group also included ﬁve children who lived with their fathers full time, and one
child living in an out-of-home treatment facility.
Child Care Arramementp

Respondents reported using a variety of methods to assure care for their
children (see Table 9). Not surprisingly for this mostly middle and upper-middle
class group of mothers, access to child care did not appear to be a challenge. Of
the 101 children reported to need child care, 43.6% (n=44) were in some form of
group care, such as preschool or commercial day care. More surprising is the
number of children who were cared for by the mothers themselves. One ﬁfth of
the children who needed care received it primarily from the respondent or her
partner, often because one of the partners was voluntarily unemployed, was able
to work at home, or had ﬁxed her schedule in order to be home before and after
school. In addition, written comments on the questionnaires revealed a variety of
other child care arrangements. For example, one mother reported taking her
infant to work with her each day. Another respondent wrote that she and her
partner “split” their work schedules to be available to their son before and after
school. A single mother mentioned that she relies on friends and neighbors for
all of her child care.
Met-MM

Respondents reported that their children were introduced into their
families in diverse ways. Table 10 summarizes data on timing and methods of

family creation. More than half (n=113) of the children lived with either the

59

respondent or her partner pm the respondent’s current relationship. That is,
57% of the children reported in this survey have a lesbian step parent. The
second-largest group of children were those who had always lived with one or
more lesbian mothers. More than a third (n=74) of the children joined the family
after the parenting couple’s relationship began. The remainder of the children
(n=10) lived in single parent families.

Data on the various methods used by respondents to add children to their
families suggest that the respondents’ histories were complex and diverse. More
than half of the children reported by respondents (n=109) were the products of
heterosexual marriages or liaisons, while 45 children (23.2%) were conceived
through donor insemination. Other pathways to parenthood cited by respondents
included adoption, foster parenting and guardianship.

The uniqueness and intricacies of these families may not be adequately
assessed by the questionnaire format, especially in families where previous
lesbian relationships produced children currently parented by a respondent. For
example, one couple, whose child is reported as “birth child by donor
insemination,” reported they were raising the biological child of a third woman,
who conceived while in a relationship with one of the currently parenting women.
Another respondent reported a child not living with her who she raised from

infancy with a former partner, and now has no access to as a non-biological

parent.

60

Children’js Responses to Motheﬁrs’ Orientation

As noted in the earlier discussion of data on level of support for
respondents’ sexual orientation, these women were open about their lesbianism
with their children. As Table 5 shows, 91.9 % (n=113) of the respondents said
that their children knew about their sexual orientation and, of these, nearly half
(46.9%) said that their children were supportive of them. Other data support the
notion that the respondents were quite open with their children. Nearly all of the
women completing questionnaires (92.8%, n=116) reported that they display
affection toward their partners, such as hugging and kissing, in front of their
children. About three-quarters (76.5%, n=91) reported that they had discussed
their sexual orientation with their children, and a sizable minority (41.9%, n=49)
reported that others had discussed their sexual orientation with their children.

Children’s reactions to their mother’s disclosure of sexual orientation were
overwhelmingly positive. Of those respondents who were out to their children
and had children old enough to react, 94% (n=94) reported that their children’s
reactions were neutral or positive (M=5.9, §Q=1.4). Children’s reactions were
reported on a 7-point scale, where ‘1’ indicated ‘very upset I rejecting,’ ‘4’ was
‘neutral I no response,’ and ‘7’ meant ‘very accepting I supportive.’ Written
comments on the questionnaires supported this ﬁnding, and indicated that
reactions varied over time and by developmental age of the child.
WW

As the above analyses indicate, lesbian mothers who responded to the

questionnaire shared a number of important characteristics. In general, they

61

were well educated, well employed, and most were ﬁnancially well off. Most
were in relationships of ﬁve years or longer. They were quite open about sexual
orientation within their immediate and extended families and with others in the
social environment. Most indicated that they experienced support from several
people regarding their sexual orientation, and nearly all of the women indicated
that their children’s reactions to their lesbian identify were either neutral or
positive.

In many ways, however, these women exhibited considerable diversity.
They lived in many areas of the state, worked at various occupations and
reported diverse religious affiliations and practices. Their children were of all
ages and diverse racial I ethnic backgrounds. The lesbian mothers reported that
children were added to their families in a variety of ways and lived in various,
sometimes-complex arrangements with the mothers.

The sub-sample of interview participants reﬂected the larger sample’s
characteristics in terms of income, educational achievement, and participation in
the workforce. They also highlighted respondent diversity in terms of age,
religious affiliation, county of residence, and length of relationship. Since six
partner-pairs were interviewed, the 21 women interviewed represented 15
families. All but one of the interview respondents'were partnered, with
relationships ranging in duration from a few months to 18 years. While most of
the interview subjects were white, three of the women (14%) were African
American. Their children, who were more racially diverse than they were, ranged

in age from six months to 17 years old. All methods of family formation, including

62

heterosexual conception, donor insemination, adoption, foster care, and
guardianship, were represented by the families. Table 11 provides a pseudonym
for each interviewee, along with a synopsis of personal data for each woman
interviewed.

As noted in Table 11, the interview sub sample was divided into three
groups based on the age of the oldest child living in the home. For each group,
seven women were interviewed. Thus, the sample includes ﬁve families in the
early childhood category, six families in the middle childhood category, and four
families in the adolescence category. Selecting interviewees into these
categories was intended to increase diversity within the interview sub-sample by
ensuring interview responses from mothers with a variety of experiences along
the family I child development continuum.

Importantly, most families outside of those with their eldest child in the 0-6
year old category included children in more than one category. Because of this,
data from the interviews often reﬂected experiences across a span of family and
child development achievements. As the Chapters 4 and 5 show, differences
between families were evident, as was variance within family categories.

For purposes of conveying the individual characteristics of the women who
were interviewed in this study, the following sectidn provides a brief sketch of
each participant. The information included here was gleaned from interactions
during the face-to-face interviews, and is meant to supplement the synopsis of

information provided on each participant in Table 11.

63

Lisa: At 24, Lisa is one of the youngest of the interviewees. She was a
casually dressed woman with a calm manner. Initially hesitant about her
responses in the interview, she was eventually able to relax, and was quite
articulate and enthusiastic in describing her family life.

Lisa lives in a duplex located in an urban center, with her partner of 18
months, her preschool-aged daughter, and an adult male friend who works with
her partner. Lisa and her partner are white. Her daughter and the adult male
friend are biracial (African American Iwhite).

At the time of her interview, Lisa was enrolled full-time in a teacher
education program at a major university. Her partner, an outreach worker for a
local health promotion agency, has considerable ﬂexibility in work schedule. Lisa
and her partner share childcare responsibilities with their roommate and various
friends. She described several gay male friends who provide signiﬁcant support
to her family.

During her interview, Lisa related that she had known that she was a
lesbian as a teenager, but had experienced such a negative reaction to her
sexual orientation that she had “tried to be straight.” Her daughter is the product
of a heterosexual liaison with an African American man, who dropped out of her
life shortly after the baby was born. Before moving in with her partner, Lisa and
her daughter lived with Lisa’s parents and siblings. She was the only interviewee
in the infant / early childhood group with a partner who joined the family after the

child.

64

Amy: At 50, Amy is the oldest of the interviewees. She is white. Dressed
in jeans and a tee shirt, she appeared younger than her stated age. She was
quiet, serious, and thoughtful throughout the interview, taking time to carefully
compose her answers before speaking.

Amy lives with her partner of 6 years and their four-year-old son in a rural
mid-state area. Her home, in which the interview took place, was ﬁlled with
photographs, drawings, toys and games belonging to her son.

Amy works as an administrator with a large non-proﬁt social service
agency, a position that gives her moderate ﬂexibility in her schedule. She
reported that she provides more than half of their son’s ﬁnancial and direct care
needs, since her partner is a full-time graduate student. Amy is heavily involved
in her church, serving on its board of directors and acting as an advocate for gay
and lesbian issues within the congregation.

Amy is the non-biological parent of her son, and thus has no legal
relationship to him. The couple have made efforts to pursue a second-parent
adoption in another county, but postponed the effort because of time and
ﬁnancial constraints. Amy related that, although she became a parent late in life,
and despite the ﬁnancial burdens of parenthood, her experiences had been so
positive that she would like to have another child .'

Carolyn: Another older parent, Carolyn was 47 at the time of her
interview. She is a stay-at-home mother, after working in skilled trades for many
years. She was reserved, but welcoming, offering coffee and indicating a space

on the dining table prepared for the interview.

65

Carolyn lives with her partner of 12 years. Both women are white. Their
two pre-school aged daughters, both adopted internationally, are Asian. The
family lives on the outskirts of an urban center with signiﬁcant resources for
lesbian mother families. Second parent adoptions have been completed for both
girls.

Carolyn’s partner, an attorney, provides almost entirely for the family’s
ﬁnancial needs, while Carolyn provides the majority of child care. Carolyn
indicated that she and her partner consider this arrangement ideal for their
family.

Julie: Julie, 30, presented as gregarious, open and eager to participate.
She was the ﬁrst of the women to be interviewed and tolerated a few minor
procedural problems, such as a too-short extension cord for the tape recorder,
with humor and patience.

Julie lives with her partner of more than seven years, Joan, and their two-
year-old son in a duplex in a conservative suburban area. She and her partner,
both white, adopted their biracial (African American Iwhite) son at birth. He is
the birth child of her partner‘s relative, thus theirs was an open independent
adopﬁon.

Julie’s son was born with a developmental'disability. As primary caregiver
and stay-at-home morn, Julie related considerable material about her son’s
special needs and reactions from service providers. She iterated that her son’s
race and ability were often more important than her sexual orientation in

interactions in the community.

66

 

 

Joan: Joan, 31, is Julie’s partner. She was a willing and articulate
participant in the interview, often volunteering information beyond the topics
covered in the protocol.

As noted above, Joan lives with her partner, Julie, and their two year old
disabled son. She is the legal parent of their son, since they have not been able
to complete a second-parent adoption in their county.

Joan works as a service provider with disabled adults, and so brings a
great deal of knowledge and experience with resources for disabilities to her
parenting. She expressed frustration with her rigid work schedule, however,
complaining that she was unable to accompany her partner and son to
evaluations and other appointments. This family is signiﬁcantly involved with
groups for families with developmentally disabled children, citing these groups as
a major source of support. In addition, both Julie and Joan said that they
experience considerable ﬁnancial stress because of living on one income.

Bonnie: Bonnie, 40, presented as energetic and extroverted. She is a
bright and articulate woman whose quick responses set the pace for her
interview. Throughout her interview, Bonnie expressed wonder and joy with the
notion of motherhood and with her role as parent.

Bonnie lives with her partner of 15 years, Connie, and their three
daughters. The girls, a three-year-old and 18-month-old twins, are Bonnie’s birth
children by donor insemination. Bonnie, who is white, used a biracial donor

(African American I white) to achieve her pregnancies. A biracial donor was

67

chosen because Bonnie and her partner wanted to have children whose racial I
ethnic characteristics reﬂected both women's backgrounds.

This family lives in an urban area with substantial services for lesbian
mother families. Second-parent adoptions have been completed for all three
children.

An attorney, Bonnie provides the primary ﬁnancial support for her family.
She expressed some frustration with the necessity of being away from her family
every day. She is looking forward to a new position at work, a change that
means she will be able to begin telecommuting from home one day a week in the
near future. Currently, Bonnie’s partner is a stay-at-home mother who provides
the majority of child care for the family.

Connie: Connie, 40, is the partner of Bonnie. Her communication style
is deliberate and thoughtful; thus her interview had a markedly serious tone and
an unhurried pace.

As noted above, Connie lives with Bonnie and their three young children in
a liberal urban area. Connie is African American, Bonnie is white, and their
daughters are biracial (African American I white). Although theirs was one of the
most racially-mixed of the families interviewed, race and ethnicity were not
considered a major factor in their interviews.

Connie gave up her position as a social worker to be a full-time, stay-at-
home mother when the twins were born. She stated that she has enjoyed being
at home, but is looking forward to returning to work, both for the salary and for

the adult contact.

68

Although this couple’s personal styles are very different, both are effective
with their children. Connie and Bonnie seem to make a deliberate effort to be
equal in their parenting roles, a value that is reﬂected in their interactions with
each other and the children.

Chloe: The only single respondent to be interviewed, Chloe, 38, also has
the smallest income. She was the most solemn of the interviewees, rarely
smiling. Nevertheless, she was clearly invested in the research project, providing
extensive personal information, and thoughtful reactions to each of the interview
questions.

A full-time graduate student, Chloe lives with her 10-year-old daughter and
seven-year-old son on the campus of a large university. All are white. Although
her relationship with her ex-husband was described as extremely negative, her
children visit their father, who lives in another state, each summer.

Chloe is involved with a support group for single parents on the campus of
her university and described this a major source of her support. As the sole
provider for her children’s ﬁnancial and direct care needs, she reported struggling
with ﬁnding adequate time and energy for all of her responsibilities.

Jocelyn: Jocelyn, 31, is an outgoing woman who presented as youthful,
enthusiastic, and engaging. Her responses were marked by a focus on her
interest in holistic health and spirituality.

At the time of initial contact, Jocelyn identiﬁed herself as living separately

from her partner. Shortly before her interview, she and her partner of 9 months

69

purchased a home, where they currently live with Jocelyn’s 11‘/2-year-old son.
Jocelyn’s relationship is the newest of any of the interviewees’.

Jocelyn noted that she continues to have friendly interactions with her
son’s father and his new wife. She described her ex-husband as one of the ﬁrst
people to whom she disclosed her sexual orientation and described his reaction
as very supportive. Jocelyn also described her relationship with her son as
close, describing shared interests in many issues and an ability to talk about
many topics.

Sheila: Sheila, 39, was self-conﬁdent, articulate, and engaging in the
interview. As did many of the participants, Sheila led the interviewer on a tour of
her home and introduced her children before beginning the interview. During the
second half of the interview, she held one of her sons in her arms, occasionally
stopping to soothe him as he fell asleep.

Sheila lives with her partner of 12 years, Marla, who was also an interview
participant. They share their two-story frame house with their four children, aged
nine months through 7 ‘/2 years. Both women are white. Three of their children
were placed with them as infants and later adopted. Another child is Sheila's
biological child by donor insemination. All the children are African American or
biracial (African American Iwhite). Second parent adoptions have been
completed for the three older children, and the process is undenNay for the baby

as well.

70

Sheila is employed as a teacher for a public school system. The family
lives in an urban area with signiﬁcant support for lesbian mother families, and
belongs to a support group for same-sex couples with adopted children.

Marla: Marla, 36, is the partner of Sheila. Her presentation in the interview
was marked by slight anxiety related to her desire to “get things right” in her
responses. She was a willing participant, whose responses provided a unique
perspective on her complex family.

As noted above, Marla lives with Sheila and their four children, who range
in age from nine months to seven years. They live in a liberal urban center,
where they are well connected with the women’s community.

Marla is both a stay-at-home mom and an entrepreneur, since she runs a
successful day care business out of her home. She is the primary caregiver for
the two youngest children because of this arrangement.

Both Sheila and Marla reported signiﬁcant involvement in their church,
where they participate in workshops and seminars on feminist spirituality, in
addition to attending regular services. In addition, they attend cultural and social
activities in the community on a regular basis. They seemed to be among the
most successful of the parents with young children in achieving a balance
between child-related responsibilities and adult socialization.

Tamara: Tamara, 37, is the only foster parent interviewed for this project.
She was talkative and direct in her responses, exhibiting considerable humor

about her experiences with parenting.

71

Tamara lives in an urban area with her partner of 5 ‘/2 years. Both women
are white. Their three foster sons, all African American, are a modiﬁed sibling
group, having lived with each other before being placed in Tamara’s home. The
children are nine, ten, and eleven years old.

A case manager for a medium-sized non-proﬁt agency, Tamara was in the
midst of reducing her work hours to half time at the time of the interview. Her
partner, who works in a professional capacity for the state, has a ﬂexible work
schedule that sometimes takes her away on overnight trips. Both women provide
direct care to their sons.

Tamara has been active in community athletics and her church choir,
commitments that she has been trying to continue by organizing her time more
efﬁciently. Although Tamara and her partner are fairly new to parenting, having
had their sons for only 6 months, they are noticeably immersed in the
experience. The couple hopes to adopt the boys if they are released by the
courts for adoption.

Kerry: Circumspect and soft-spoken, Kerry, 34, provided a marked
contrast to some of the more gregarious interviewees. Speaking in the kitchen of
her rural farmhouse, she was reﬂective and displayed a quiet humor.

Kerry lives with her partner of three years and her partner’s two biological
children. All are white. Despite her relatively recent entry into this family, Kerry
is now the primary care provider to the children, since her partner is enrolled in a

full-time program at a local college as well as working full time. Her positive

72

relationships with her 10-year-old step son and 7 ‘/2-year-old step daughter were
evident when the children arrived home at the end of the interview.

Kerry’s children live in her home half time and half time with their father,
alternating weeks in each home. This arrangement provokes considerable
frustration in Kerry, who spoke in detail about the logistical difﬁculties inherent in
the arrangement.

Alyce: Alyce, 38, presented as one of the most self-assured of the
participants, responding thoughtfully and directly to each interview question. Her
attitudes seemed to reﬂect a remarkable comfort with her self and her values.

Alyce lives with her partner of 18 years, whom she met when both
attended a local university. Also in their home are their two children, ages 11
and 2, and an adult female friend. All are white. The woman friend living in
Alyce’s home takes an active part in family life, and is responsible for child care
at least one day each week.

Alyce is the birth mother of both children by donor insemination. A
second-parent adoption has been completed on the older child, but Alyce stated
that she resented the intrusiveness and expense of the home study process. She
and her partner do not plan to pursue an adoption for their younger child “until
the laws change.”

The co-owner of a small retail business that caters to the women’s
community, Alyce is immersed in lesbian culture both personally and

professionally. She reported, however, that her work is often difﬁcult and

73

ﬁnancially unproﬁtable. Her partner, a project manager for a technology
company, provides the greatest part of the family income.

Kelsie: Kelsie, 39, is an emotional woman, who spoke with passion about
her relationship with her partner and her recent divorce from her husband. Her
affect, while intense, was appropriate to the content of her interview. She
appeared to be quite invested in the research project, making considerable effort
to arrange an interview around her unpredictable work schedule.

Kelsie lives in an apartment with her partner of 2 years, Candace, and her
13-year-old daughter. Her son, aged 11, lives with his father. All members of
this family are white. They live in a suburb of one of the state’s largest cities.

Kelsie’s story is unique in that her relationship with Candace was “a
surprise” to both women, who considered themselves heterosexual before
meeting each other. Kelsie reported that her change in sexual orientation has
been a major focus of her life in the past few years.

Candace: Candace, 24, is the partner of Kelsie. Along with Lisa, she was
the youngest of the interviewees. She presented herself with considerable
maturity, responding with poise to the interview questions. Her responses were
thoughtful and direct throughout the interview.

As described above, Candace lives with Kelsie and Kelsie’s 13-year-old
daughter. Candace spoke at length about her role in the family as a new step
parent and new partner. A part-time psychology student, she appeared to have

very good understanding of the issues inherent in blended families.

74

A signiﬁcant focus for both Kelsie and Candace at the time of their
interviews was their age difference. The 15-year difference in their ages was not
unique in the larger sample or in the sub-sample of interview participants. (For
example, Terry’s partner was 14 years younger, and Lynn and Cara had a 13
year age difference.) However, the difference in their developmental stages,
along with criticism from friends and family, may have contributed to the
perceived discrepancy.

Lynn: Lynn, 33, is an active, outgoing woman. She spoke at length on
each of the topics presented, rarely requiring encouragement or input from the
interviewer. Her infant daughter, who was present throughout the interview,
provided frequent distraction.

Lynn lives with her partner of 10 years, Cara. Their six-month-old
daughter, Lynn’s biological daughter by a known donor, also lives with the couple
full-time. Cara’s two teenagers, whose physical custody is with their father, are
in the home frequently. This family is white. They live in a double-wide mobile
home set on a large lot in a mixed suburban-rural area.

Lynn works as a municipal department manager, a job that requires a
great deal of outdoor activity and variable hours. She takes her infant to work
with her every day. Her partner’s hours are quite'ﬂexible, but Cara has been

reluctant to provide direct care, an issue that has become a focus of negotiation

for this couple.

75

Cara: Cara, 46, is the partner of Lynn. One of the most talkative of the
participants, Cara provided ample background and detail for each of her
responses.

As described above, Cara lives with her partner, Lynn, and their six-
month-old daughter. Cara’s son, 15, and daughter, 12, are frequently in the
home as well, in spite of the fact that Cara reported that she voluntarily
relinquished physical custody of her children when she came out as lesbian.
Although difﬁcult at the time, she commented that she feels she made the right
decision for her family. Because of the custody arrangement, both Cara and
Lynn have regular contact with the children’s father, and Cara reported that she
has developed a friendly relationship with her ex-husband’s new wife.

Cara’s work involves doing home visits with ill or homebound persons, so
her schedule is often unpredictable. A talented amateur artist, she stated that
she hopes to quit her job in order to work on her art full-time. Both Cara and Lynn
are active members of a Wiccan spiritual circle, an afﬁliation that both provided
segregation from the mainstream spiritual and social community, and assisted
integration into a group of like-minded others. Cara described the pagan group
as her ‘family of choice.’

Terry: Reserved and pragmatic, Teny, 35, was the most tacitum of the
participants. The interviewer used frequent probes in an effort to further explore
the interview topics. In spite of her reserved presentation, Terry appeared to be

fully willing to participate, as she completed the interview without hesitation.

76

Terry lives with her partner of six years, Joni, another interviewee. Teny’s
half-brother, 17, who is her legal ward, also lives in the household. She has
parented him for more than six years, since she was appointed his legal guardian
by the courts. In addition, Joni’s eight-year-old son by donor insemination
resides in the house. Terry and Joni are African American. Her brother and her
partner’s son are biracial (African American I Hispanic). They live in an elegant
restored home in an historic district of a metropolitan area.

Terry works in the ﬁnancial industry, a job that entails regular hours and a
substantial salary. While she has limited ﬂexibility in her work schedule, she
does provide the majority of interaction with her brother’s school and other
systems. She reported that she has taken a minor role in parenting her partner’s
son, since she sees herself as his step parent rather than a primary care
provider. Recently, she has expressed interest in pursuing second-parent
adoption for the eight-year-old.

Joni: Joni, 41, is Teny’s partner. With her direct, eloquent, and
expressive speech, she possessed one of the more powerful personalities
among the interview participants.

As noted above, Joni lives with her partner, Terry, and Terry’s 17-year—old
ward. Joni’s eight-year-old son, conceived by donor insemination while Joni was
in a prior lesbian relationship, also lives in the home. Joni’s son has minimal
contact with his ‘other mother.’

A successful sales representative for a professional supplies company,

Joni has considerable ﬂexibility in her job. She reported that she is able to be

77

available whenever her son needs her to participate in his school, medical
appointments, or other activities. Joni assumes primary care for her son,
although Teny’s full participation in his parenting is a goal for this family.

Joni described herself as an activist. She was instrumental in founding
her church, which serves the African American gay and lesbian community in her
area. In addition, she has held leadership positions in various mainstream and
lesbian community organizations. At the time of her interview, she was involved
in a court appeal for a second-parent adoption. If granted, her family’s would be
the ﬁrst successful second-parent adoption case in her county.

Chandra: Chandra, 35, is an attractive and vivacious woman whose
interview was marked by her extreme distress over perceived threats to custody
of her children. Initial contact with Chandra was during a face-to—face interview.
The immediacy of Chandra’s worries at the time of this ﬁrst interview resulted in
partial coverage of some aspects of her relationships. Therefore, two additional
contacts were made by phone in order to offer ongoing support and to augment
interview data that were incompletely covered in the original contact.

Chandra lives with her partner of 3 ‘/2 years and her three children, ages
13, 11, and six years. The family lives in a modest suburban home in a
notoriously conservative area of the state. All members of the family are white.

Chandra works as classroom aide in a local school district. She reported
that she quit her previous position to accept this one, in spite of substantial

reductions in pay and beneﬁts, because it offers her the ability to be available to

78

her children each day after school. Her partner, who works for a large
corporation, is the primary breadwinner in the family.

As noted above, Chandra’s interview was dominated by her anxiety over
an impending court hearing, which Chandra perceived as a threat to her physical
custody of the children. She reported that, although her relationship with her ex-
husband was originally amicable, he is now suing for full custody of the children,
and has introduced her sexual orientation into the case as an argument against
her. Initial media coverage has already exposed her to her employer, co-workers
and other associates. In addition, stress from the case has impacted Chandra’s
relationship with her partner and children, resulting in increased conﬂict in their
home.

The following chapters report on the interviews with these participants.
While the analyses of the interview data are necessarily fragmented, every effort
has been made to retain the richness of the individual personalities of the women
by inclusion of their own words in the discussion of themes revealed in the

interviews about their experiences within their families and communities.

79

Chapter 4

RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES

Feminist research is grounded in “an understanding that many aspects of
women’s experience have not yet been articulated or conceptualized within
social science" (Jayaratne 8 Stewart, 1991, p. 89). One way to understand
women more accurately is to use research methods that integrate women’s
voices directly into the study of women’s lives. In the case of lesbians, this re-
conceptualization of methodology is even more important, since lesbians
continue to be largely marginalized by the dominant culture and by the practices
of mainstream science.

As noted in Chapter 2, qualitative analysis is particularly useful for
exploration of conditions and experiences that are not easily accessed by
conventional, quantitative research methods. In this study, qualitative analysis
offered an opportunity to ‘give voice’ to lesbians whose experiences as women,
as partners, and as mothers, may be overlooked, misunderstood, or
misinterpreted without their own perspectives to guide understanding. The
following is a qualitative analysis of lesbian mothers’ comments about
relationships within their own households. Table 12 summarizes relationship
themes within respondents’ households.
MW

Nearly all of the women interviewed for this study were partnered. Of the

20 partnered interviewees, all lived with their partners and one or more children.

80

All of the partnered interviewees characterized their relationships as ‘strong I
positive.’ Satisfaction with partner relationships was quite high; satisfaction
levels ranged from four, ‘moderately satisﬁed,’ to seven, ‘perfectly satisﬁed.’ The
mean satisfaction level for all partnered interviewees was 6.20 on the 7-point
scale (§Q=.82).

Centrﬁality and intensity. Respondents characterized their primary intimate
relationships as friendships, partnerships and alliances. The most common
theme in descriptions of the relationships concerned the inﬂuence and centrality
of the relationship in the life of the respondent. While most respondents simply
mentioned that they loved their partners, many also referred to the “best friend”
status of the partner. Lisa, who lived with her partner of 18 months and their 4
year old daughter, described the partnership:

“(This is) a really good relationship we support each other (this is) a

more equal power balance than any other relationship I’ve been in."
Keny echoed this idea when she said that her relationship with her partner of
three years was “the most equal partnership I’ve ever had.”

A few of the women interviewed implied that woman-to-woman
relationships were ‘naturally’ more intimate. Like other couples in the study, Lynn
and Cara described themselves as “each others’ best friends.” Cara reﬂected
that this feeling of closeness was not uncommon among her coupled lesbian
friends:

“I feel like we have a pretty honest you know, in our relationship we

pretty much tell each other everything pertinent. We don’t have secrets

81

 

from each other and, you know, I think that we think of each other as

being really good friends. And I think that that’s one of the reasons that

this kind of relationship can work. That people of the same gender,
especially women because you can be friends before you’re lovers if
you take the time to develop the friendship, and it makes your relationship
stronger."

Some relationship descriptions suggested that the women experienced
the interactions with their partners as deeply intense, or even spiritual. Jocelyn,
whose relationship with her partner was less than a year old, described their time
together as a mystical experience, even attributing the relationship to a force
beyond her control:

“Fate took a big hand in this, in bringing us together. And we weren’t

necessarily seeking anything out, but it just happened and we knew - oh

my gosh, this is so wonderful!“

Similarly, Candace, a 24 year old non-biological parent to two children,
who was in her ﬁrst intimate relationship with a woman, struggled to ﬁnd words
for the emotional intensity she experienced with her partner:

“It’s the most important thing in my life andso its sensual, and um

it’s the love that I can’t even describe It’s hard to describe. I never

felt this way before I need her and she needs me. It’s almost like we’re
one.”

When asked to elaborate on her perception of their oneness, Candace went on

to say that:

82

“Our feelings for each other are so strong that its almost like we think the

same, we feel the same, ...we cherish our relationship. It’s like knowing

that I’m always there for her and she’s always there for me. (We are good

at) making decisions, and, um, supporting each other just kind of like

conﬁding in each other. We’re very good at that and we’re best friends."

Jocelyn’s and Candace’s sentiments were not unusual, even for women
who were older, or who were partnered for much longer periods of time. Joni, for
example, described her six year relationship with Lynn as the most meaningful
she had ever experienced:

“(She) completes me I am better with her than with anyone else or

by myself. We’ll be together until the end of time.”

Focus on communication. An important aspect of this friendship between
partners seemed to be the women’s persistence in focusing on communication.
For example, Jocelyn said that her relationship with her partner was special and
satisfying because of their ability to talk things out:

“We talk about everything, and when there is a problem...we could have

problems we lay it right out on the table. Or if she doesn’t want to lay it

out on the table, I try to get her to talk it out ...but we talk a lot. I think
probably that is our strongest trait.”

Even couples who reported that such interactions were difﬁcult, mentioned
communication as a focus in their relationships. Julie and Joan identiﬁed verbal
expression as the most important aspect of their bond with each other. Julie,

who stayed home with their son, named “communication, compromise and

83

support” as the keys to her relationship with her partner, stressing that ﬁnding the
time to talk, and communicating effectively, were not easy for them because they
“spoke different languages.” Her partner, Joan, echoed this theme by saying
that the most important part of the relationship for her was “... (being) able to say
what I need.” Similarly, Kelsie, whose relationship with Candace was one of the
newest in the study, reported that “learning to speak up about my you know,
feelings and stuff...“ was an important area of growth in that relationship.

Shared interest in the familv. In specifying the positive attributes of their
partnerships, respondents described values and interests that they shared with
their partners as one of the strengths of the relationship. In particular, goals
related to their children were cited as an important theme in the lives of these
women. Carolyn, said that she and her partner generally agreed that:

“Our mission statement is to raise the kids - I might include, uh a
few other things but this (goal) is generally agreed."
Chandra, whose partner had never parented before joining Chandra’s family,
echoed this theme:
“We have a kid-centered home the kids (are) the center of (our) life. I
don’t want an adult in the house who isn’t going to help.”
Echoing these sentiments, Joan mentioned that she and Julie share:
“...similar values about what is a family...and we agree on what is ...a

safe type of environment for (our son).”

 

Julie, in turn, mentioned that she and Joan have similar “ideas about (our
son’s) needs and potential,” a commonality that was particularly critical to their
efforts to provide a positive environment for their developmentally disabled child.
Complementary charaﬁcteristics. Respondents who pointed out similarities
with their partners also contrasted their personalities, skills or backgrounds with
their partners’ characteristics. Statements about differences often emphasized
the couple’s complementarity as a source of strength in their interaction with
each other and their children. For example, Tamara, who was foster parenting
threeO boys with her partner of 6 years, said:
“ Having kids points out the differences between us. (I am) more
emotional.. And (my partner) is ...like, structured and.. not emotional.”
She went on to describe ways in which each of their styles worked with their boys
in various situations. Lynn, another mother of three, repeated the idea that
differences make for greater options in interacting with children. Lynn
characterized herself and her partner, Cara, as:
“... opposites in a lot of ways ...Cara is artsy and I am I am, you
know, what is it? Left or right brain? You know, I am intellectual, and I
am athletic, and she is not [laughing] at all! So, that’s okay with us, and
with the kids we can each do stuff."

Similarly, Lisa, who was co-parenting with a woman 14 years younger, said that

her partner:

85

“ls much, much more patient than I am. And she plays things with (our
son) that I don't want to, and she helps (our son) to understand his
feelings.”

Surviving adversity. An important theme regarding partner relationships
concerned the respondent and her partner persevering through hardships
together. Respondents who mentioned this theme described experiences that
apparently served to forge a deeper commitment between partners, and
enhanced their stability as couples. Several of the lesbian mothers described
difﬁcult or frightening episodes in their partnered lives, such as signiﬁcant health
or emotional problems, or stressful episodes with their children. For example,
Amy and Connie both dealt with cancer diagnoses during the periods of time in
which they were trying to start their families. Amy even underwent a mastectomy
while her partner was pregnant. In addition, Connie and Marla both reported
experiencing miscarriages. In separate interviews, these women talked about
the support and commitment of their partners during those difﬁcult times as
beneﬁcial to their relationships.

Similarly, Julie talked about the weeks of uncertainty and confusion
immediately following the birth of their adopted child as a time when she felt that
she and her partner were a strong team. She described in detail the multiple
health problems, intrusive procedures and conﬂicting information that they
received at their son’s birth, when he was diagnosed with a developmental
disability:

“I think that the stress that was generated through all those things didn’t

86

really cause stress between my partner and myself. It was more like we

felt stress at the medical community and the educational people but it was

like we were feeling it together. It wasn’t like, you know, one of us was
saying, ‘l’m so stressed out. You’re just driving me crazy.’

Cara, who lost physical custody of her children when she came out, also
spoke of the difﬁculties that she and her partner endured during that period. She
described her 10-year relationship with Lynn as:

progressive. We have had lots of struggles together. And (there have

been) times in the past we have almost broken up but became

stronger ...and we Ieamed from each event , you know, it’s been an
ongoing thing.” _

Bgadblocksto 1mm. Finally, nearly half of the partnered lesbians
interviewed mentioned difﬁculties with ﬁnding time for each other amidst the
demands of parenthood. Carolyn expressed dissatisfaction with her family’s
nighttime routine, in which one or both of the children end up in the couple’s bed
to sleep:

“(My youngest daughter) was very traumatized (before the adoption), so

she’d be back and forth, back and forth. I’d get her situated in her own

room, and then something would happen and then she’d be back with us

(in bed). I ﬁnally said, ‘She’s a well-adjusted, happy kid. I’m not going to

mess her up by making her sleep in her own room.’ You know, I just gave

up. So that’s my big thing I want to change. Which would allow us more

time together and more lwould just feel closer. I miss that closeness. l

87

think it’s probably typical.”

Similarly, Lynn admitted that, since the birth of her daughter, she and her partner
have had “no time to be close — it’s really getting to be a problem.” Tamara,
whose ﬁrst experience with parenting began with the placement of her three
foster children, also mentioned that she and her partner ﬁnd that “not having
enough time to process is deﬁniter a stressor.”

In the cases of Carolyn, Lynn and Tamara, lack of time for the couple was
attributed to the pressing demands of parenting. In other cases, though
roadblocks to intimacy were seen as coming from factors outside of the family
unit. Lisa, for example, cited the hectic schedule of her partner, a full-time
student as a barrier to intimacy. Alyce and her partner shared a house with
another adult who was seen as a positive inﬂuence on the children, but
“sometimes it’s hard to get personal space as a couple” with a third adult in the
house.

None of the respondents indicated that lack of intimacy resulted from
reluctance to be affectionate in the presence of their children. In fact, Sheila
described her 12-year relationship with Marla as a potential source of modeling
for their children, despite the obstacles to integrating that intimacy in their lives:

“I think probably the thing that I notice the most is that we’re probably not

as affectionate or demonstrative with one another as we could be. And I

think probably because we’ve grown so used to you know, in 95% of

our lives (we are) not able to really be demonstrative. And it’s just

kind of been a carry over, and we haven’t made a huge effort to make

88

sure that we continue to do that. I mean, it’s not like we’re void of that,

and it’s not like the kids never see us, you know, be affectionate with one

another, but its probably not as much as I would like them to see us.”

In summary, relationships between partnered lesbian mothers were highly
positive, intense, and focused on communication. Whether respondents were
describing similarities or differences, they focused on the ways in which these
characteristics beneﬁted the couple relationship as well as the ability to parent.
Very few non-positive comments were found in the data on couple relationships.
Relationships Between Lesbian Mothers and their Children

In the interviews, each respondent was asked to provide information about
her relationship with each child in her family. Each partnered respondent was
also asked to provide information about how she perceived the relationships
between her partner and each child in the family. Data collected in this way
represented information on diverse mother-child relationships, since it included
mothers and children of a variety of ages and lengths of relationship. Types of
bonds were diverse as well; biological mothers, non-biological birth mothers
(partners of donor inseminated women), adoptive mothers, step mothers, and a
foster mother were included in the sample.

As with the data on partner relationships, the interviewees’
characterizations of parent-child relationships were highly positive. In 12 of the
15 (80%) families, relationships between the lesbian mothers I step mothers and
their children were described as exclusively ‘strong I positive.’ Like their

descriptions of their adult partnerships, these women described their parenting

89

relationships as committed, meaningful and gratifying. Satisfaction level ranged
from three to seven on the 7-point scale. The mean satisfaction level for parent-
child relationships was 6.01 (S5139).

Getting and keeping children. One theme relevant to the entire group of
parents was the value that these mothers placed on having children and on
retaining custody of their children. The way in which this theme was expressed
varied according to the pathway to parenthood for each family. For example,
Marla, who had been through three adoption proceedings and was awaiting a
fourth, said that her four children were “her 'roots” because they provided focus
and stability in her life. Carolyn, a 47-year-old adoptive mother, said of her
daughter, “Adopting her was the happiest day of my life.” Her partner’s adoption
of another baby girl a year later was “the second happiest day.”

For non-adoptive mothers who conceived children while in lesbian
relationships, a sense of gratitude for having children was more subtle, but still
evident. Sometimes stories about the difﬁculties experienced in “getting” a child
served to illustrate the point. Joni, an African American biological mother of an 8-
year-old biracial boy conceived by donor insemination, described how she and
her former partner approached a regional sperm bank for assistance. Joni was
told that the bank did not have any African AmeriCan donors, as they had never
had a call for one in the past. Joni’s persistence and ﬂexibility in pursuing her
goal eventually resulted in her son’s conception and birth, and she seemed proud
of her assertiveness and creativity. Respondents in ﬁve families mentioned

having obstacles to getting pregnant through donor insemination, including cost,

90

locating supportive medical personnel, infertility and other health concerns. For
example, Connie, who was mother to three daughters under four years old,
described her struggles to become pregnant and carry a baby to term. When
health circumstances prevented her from continuing, she and her partner
resolved to have Bonnie carry the children.

Finally, most mothers whose custody was challenged by ex—husbands
after the mothers came out as lesbian cited their struggle to retain custody as an
important theme. Imbedded in these stories was a sense of powerlessness and
frustration in the face of the legal system and an estranged former husband. The
most immediate of these stories was told by Chandra, who, at the time of these
interviews, was involved in a dispute with her former husband over the physical
custody of their three children. Chandra reported that her attorney had told her:

“ ‘You could lose your children. You could very well lose your children.’

And I said, ‘Why? What could be the grounds?’ And I guess the grounds

possibly could be all the accusations (my ex-husband) made (about her

lesbianism). But (the court) never checked them out! And I don’t know

what witnesses he’s going to pull, and I really can’t think of anybody I

mean, I really haven’t been a very bad person. It’s not like they’re going to

pull in somebody, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve see her rUnning around drunk and she’s
out every Friday night and she’s been cheating on (her partner) for a year
and a half.’ There’s nothing they could do because I haven’t done

anything. I don’t know who those witnesses would be.”

91

When the prospect of shared custody with the children’s father was raised,
Chandra was adamant:

“Then I’ll appeal. I’ll appeal. I have no intention of allowing my children

They need more involvement with their father, by all means I want him

to be (more involved) He doesn’t parent them well as far as

supervision and nutrition and personal hygiene issues and stuff like that.

But he loves them and he’s a Disney dad. When they’re over there, he

does fun stuff with them and they love him. He’s their father. And, most

certainly, he needs to be involved. I'm not trying to say ‘I don’t want you to

be with your dad,’ but they have all said the recommendations have

said that the children want to live with their mother. “
While Chandra’s statements reﬂected ambivalence about her children’s
relationship with their father, they were quite pointed concerning her connection
to the children. In each of the families where custody was discussed,
respondents expressed deep regard for the continuity of their parenting
connection and strong conviction that ongoing connection to the lesbian mother
family was beneﬁcial to the children.

Desire for more time t_Qgether. Some themes were speciﬁc to sub-groups
of families represented by the interviewees. In the early childhood group
families, for example, interviewees reported that mothers and children both
wished for more time together. The focus on time as a commodity was often
related to mothers being away from home for extended periods of time during the

child’s day. For example, in talking about her relationship with her 2-year-old

92

son, Joan, a full-time worker, reported that she particularly “look(s) forward to
our time together. We get to play when I get home (from work)." Carolyn said
that her three-year-old daughter looks forward to her partner’s return home from
work everyday as well. Lisa, who commuted back and forth to college four days
a week and spent signiﬁcant time at home studying, said that she “would like
more time and energy to spend” with her four year old.

The expressed desire for more time together seemed to fade as children
got older, as might be expected with children whose developmental needs
changed with the transition to middle childhood and adolescence. Interestingly,
the only respondent outside of the early childhood group who reported her
children wishing for more time with the adults in the family was Tamara, whose
three foster sons had been recently placed with her after living in an
unpredictable environment. The children’s desire for time with Tamara and her
partner, then, seemed to be related to the children’s history and need for
remedial support, reassurance and nurturing.

Attempts to integrate a new mother. Nearly half (n=7) of the families
represented in the interviews contained a step parent by virtue of a partner
having joined a biological mother and her children after the birth of the children.
In these families, regardless of the length of time the couple had been together,
the evolving nature of the step parent I step child relationship was an important
theme. The dynamics of attempting to integrate new mothers into blended

families were expressed in various ways in these families.

93

Several interviewees attempted to characterize the child’s relationship with
the mother’s partner by using creative descriptions of role combinations. Lisa, for
example, described her four-year-old daughter’s relationship to her partner of 1
1/2 years as:

“(She’s) a ‘mom-friend.’ It’s constantly evolving... Just recently (my
daughter) accepted (my partner). Now she accepts her as the ‘other
mom' and as permanent. Six months ago, it was different. We were still
settling in.”

In most cases, the creation of hybrid names for step mothers reﬂected the
families’ recognition of the quasi-parental relationships that the mothers’ partners
developed from their positions as relative outsiders in the family. Kelsie, who
described her partner, Candace’s, role in the family as a “friend-mom” and a “co-
parent-sister" to Kelsie’s 13 year old daughter, explained that her daughter felt
especially close to Candace:

“Candace is one person that (my daughter) can disagree with and

argue about things with and still feel okay. "
Candace also commented that:

“(Kelsie’s daughter) comes to me for advice kind of and, um, I think I make

(her) feel good about (herself). She’s changed a lot. She’s actually told

me that I make her feel good about herself. I think that I help her see

that... I help her with her relationships with her friends and family. She
has a hard time with her father and her brother sometimes, and I help

(with that)”

94

Non-positive interactions. Even families that characterized the stepparent
relationship as ‘strong / positive,’ identiﬁed strain in the development of
interactions within these dyads. Joni’s description of her partner, Terry’s,
interaction with her son after six years together exempliﬁes these comments:

“I think (my son) looks more on Terry like a step mother, and because I

grew up in stepparent home, I know what that's about. I’m basically the

one who put in his mind that she’s like a step mother, you know. So there
are those times when he will run up to her on his own and hug her, and
there are other times I have to say ‘60 give her a hug and a kiss.‘ There
are times when he will say “I’m sorry’ on his own, so I don’t have to say

‘Apologize to her now.’ And there are times when he has made her cry I

think it’s getting better It takes time to make a family and he is

getting older.”

While parent-child relationships in most families were generally positive, a
sub-group of women in blended families described signiﬁcant problems in these
relationships. In three blended families, all the adults interviewed independently
characterized the relationship between the non-biological parent and one of the
children as ‘tenuous / strained’ or ‘stressful I negative.’ These non-positive
relationships yielded some interesting comments about the interactions between
biological / non-biological, lesbian / heterosexual and parent / stepparent
relationships.

The speciﬁcs of the conﬂicts were unique to each family, but important

similarities existed. All families that reported non-positive parent-child

95

relationships have oldest children in the 13-18 year-old range, although the
identiﬁed child was not necessarily a teenager. A theme common to all three
families was that the children _a_r1g their fathers were described as wishing for
their birth parents to reunite. Candace described their situation this way:

“(Kelsie) has a really hard time with letting (her son) know exactly what I

am to her. That I really am her partner. That bothers me. Like, for

example, for Mothers’ Day, he put a note in his Mother’s Day card
from his dad to his mom. And he gave Kelsie ﬂowers. (Kelsie’s ex-
husband) had bought these ﬂowers and (Kelsie’s son) gave them to

Kelsie. And I told Kelsie that I don’t want her to be mean to (her son), but

I want her to let (her son) know that I’m not going away. He needs to

know that I’m in her life.”

In addition, for two of the three families reporting conﬂict between
stepparents and children, the non-biological mother was described as taking on a
disciplinary role with the children. Chandra, whose partner joined the family very
shortly after Chandra’s separation from her husband, explained her partner’s
conﬂict with their oldest child this way:

“(My partner) met me when (my son) was nine.. And he was already

having some of those (negative) behaviors, (so) she didn’t get the cute

little two-year-old lovey-dovey stuff. She also takes the more disciplinary
role with him ‘cause a lot of times its so upsetting to me, and I lose my
cool and he listens to her better. She demands respect. “You will not talk

to your mother like that!” I just think that part of the reason that it is

96

‘stressful / negative’ is because she is put in the position of disciplinarian.
Part of it is because she’s so upset with his attitude lately. Although she
cares deeply for him, I think that there’s not a whole lot of positive.
Similarly, Lynn complained that Cara, the biological mother of their two older
children, often did not take an active enough role in limit setting:
“I have to get mad about it before she’ll do something (to discipline the
children). It used to be always me. She wouldn’t do it. She was afraid
that, when she ﬁrst got divorced, and actually she still does, that her kids
won’t like her as much if she does.”
Lynn noted that the relationship with her 12-year-old step daughter had improved
recently:
“I think when I started making Cara take responsibility for disciplining,
particularly (this daughter), then she stopped looking at me as the ogre.”
In all three of the families in which the respondents identiﬁed non-positive
parent-child relationships, the family history related during the interviews
stressed the disruptive nature of the biological mother's divorce from the
children’s father. That is, in each family, the biological mother was married to her
children’s father, realized her lesbian orientation, and initiated separation from
her husband. In each of these cases, the children’s father was described as
reluctant to accept his wife’s lesbianism and subsequent desire to end the
marriage. In all three cases, too, the biological mother’s current partner was ‘in
the picture’ during or shortly after the parents’ breakup, and thus was the ﬁrst

step parent known to the children. Finally, in all three families, the children spent

97

signiﬁcant time with their fathers (and in one case lived with the father full-time),
and thus were exposed to differences in household rules, values and dynamics
on an ongoing basis.

Interestingly, Kerry’s family ﬁts this step family proﬁle except that her
oldest child is not yet a teenager. However, her family currently exhibits none of
the non—positive dynamics cited by the other families, although Kerry is actively
involved in every aspect of her children’s lives, including discipline.

This brief description of major themes in the parent-child relationships of
lesbian mother families highlights that parent-child relationships were highly
regarded and valued. Respondents in all categories told stories about the hard
work and sacriﬁces they made to have and keep their children. Most families
seemed to enjoy each other, and mothers with young children especially
expressed the desire for more time together. Blended families were concerned
with the development of relationships between children and mother’s partner and
sometimes described ways in which this unique relationship was helpful to the
children in the family. In a few families, the step parent-step child relationship
seemed to be negatively impacted by the birth parents’ history of separation and
divorce.

W

In addition to providing data on relationships between adults and between
parents and children, respondents in this study were asked to describe
interactions between children in their households. Most of the families (n=11)

represented by the respondents included sibling pairs or groups. Twenty-eight

98

children in this sample had siblings with whom they interacted. Four families -
Lisa’s, Amy’s, Julie and Joan’s and Jocelyn’s - contained single children and so
were not considered in this section.

Characterizations of sibling relationships by the mothers showed the
greatest variability of any of the relationships described. Overall, however, these
relationships were primarily positive. More than three quarters of the mothers
described child-child relationships in the families as ‘strong I positive.” In spite of
the greater percentage of non-positive relationship characterizations made in the
interviews, though, respondents indicated approximately the same level of
satisfaction with sibling relationships as with adult or parent-child interactions.
Respondent satisfaction levels for sibling relationships ranged from two to seven.
The mean satisfaction level for sibling relationships was 6.14 on the 7-point scale
(ﬂﬁ .87).

Thematic content that related to sibling relationships was the least
articulated of the data gathered during these interviews. Respondents seemed
reluctant to make generalizations about these relationships. Their lack of
speciﬁcity did not seem to be related to apathy or emotional distance on the part
of the respondents, but rather was a reﬂection of mothers’ perceptions that
children’s personalities determined the character cf sibling interactions, and thus,
were beyond the control of the interviewees.

m. The most common theme expressed in the interviews
about children’s relationships with each other concerned sibling rivalry. Women

described their children as competing with each other for their parents’ attention,

99

for privileges and objects around the home, and for dominance in interpersonal

exchanges. Rivalry often took the form of “yelling,” “teasing,” and “ﬁghting.” Only

one family, Chandra’s, reported a child who used physical aggression, “smacking

his sister, “ on a regular basis. Tamara’s description of the interaction between

her three foster sons is typical of most families with sibships:
“(Two of the boys) are very competitive. They’re ﬁve months apart but
they’re really, really different. They enjoy different things, they have
different friendship groups, you know. They have a lot of ﬁghts. They
blame each other for everything. ...They will (physically ﬁght) ...but not as
much as one would think. It’s funny because we told them they couldn’t
ﬁght in the house. ‘If you really need to ﬁght, you have to go out in the
yard, that way you can’t hit your head on anything.” And then, just the
idea of going outside, they cool down enough by that time. ..It just cools
them down enough when they go outside, that it keeps them from hurting
each other."

Candace described the rivalry between her step children:
“(Kelsie’s daughter) gets very upset when her brother’s around because
Kelsie kind of makes it like she hasn’t spent all that time with (her son), so
instead of (Kelsie’s daughter) going to the Store with her, (her son) goes to
the store with her. And so it’s like a big (mess)... And then (Kelsie’s
daughter) will come running to me, ‘Why does he get to go?”
Sibling attachment. In contrast to competitive interactions like these,

many siblings were also characterized as loving and deeply attached to each

100

other. Kerry noted that her 11 year-old son “would be lost without his little sister.”
Carolyn described her two pre-schoolers as “best buddies.” Chloe described the
relationship between her two children, ages 10 and 7 years old:

“They ﬁght a lot, but I’ve seen them pull together when they need to. (My
son) split his head open at school and l was out at (a nearby community)
that day. And (his sister) came in to the ofﬁce and sat with him and held
his hand and took care of him. He ended up with six stitches and I had to
be out of town that day!”

And Tamara, who described two of her sons as very competitive, above, also
reported a strong and warm connection between a different pair of boys:
“In a lot of ways, (the younger brother) is ahead of (the older brother),
intellectually, and he’s taller than him now, and ...you know, just in a lot of
ways. But (the younger boy) never holds that over him. A lot of people
put him ahead of (his older brother). “Oh, you’re older. No, I’m not.” But
he’ll always defer to (his older brother)”
Marla reported that her four children had positive relationships with each other for
the most part:
“They are very much connected to one another. I think they have all
wonderful relationships with one another. But it’s just like how sibs get,
you know they can boss (each other) around one second and the next
second, they can be ‘Oh, she hit me, she pushed me, this happened, that
happened.” But if I left right now and they were asleep, they’d be

snuggling up right next to each other.”

101

Finally, Cara described the relationship between her 15-year-old son and 12-
year- old daughter:

“You know, they have their own little sibling rivalry things going, but when

it came right down to it, they would both, you know, be very sad if

something happened to the other one. And when no one’s around, they
get along really well.”

Opportunities tggrow. A ﬁnal theme related to sibling relationships was
the idea that interactions between the children offered them opportunities to grow
and Ieam. Mothers pointed out that their children’s siblings offered important role
modeling, communication training, and lessons in self-control. Joni noted that
her 8-year-old biological son looked up to Terry’s 17-year-old brother I ward
because both are boys and both are biracial:

“(T erry’s brother) is his role model. And it’s good he’s around ...good for

both of them.”

In some cases mothers reported that their older children helped their
younger children to manage living in a non-traditional family. For example,
Kelsie reported that her 13-year-old daughter helped her 11-year-old son to deal
with having a lesbian mother because her daughter is “more articulate and more
comfortable with the whole thing."

Many of the comments about child-child relationships focused on the
beneﬁts of older siblings for younger children, but a few also implied that older

children beneﬁted from interacting with little brothers and sisters. In describing

102

her 12-year-old step daughter’s relationship with the six-month-old baby, Lynn
noted that:

“Recently they had a change in their relationship. (The older daughter)

has always liked (the baby) but it’s like she didn’t know how to deal with

her. (The older daughter) has no idea (of) the whole concept of how to
relate to a baby. A couple weekends ago, she baby-sat (the baby) for
an hour and ﬁfteen minutes, and (the baby) actually had a ﬁt and (the
older daughter) did everything! She even got (the baby) to go to sleep by
herself which is almost impossible to do! So, since that event happened
where she had to take care of (the baby) she’s much better at
communicating with her and she’s much better.”

Sibling relationships in these families, then, were characterized as both
competitive and sustaining, and were marked by both conﬂict and cooperation.
Mothers stressed the ways in which living with brothers and sisters provided
opportunities for their children to mature and to learn interpersonal skills.
Perhaps because they were the least articulated of the household relationships,
the sibling interactions were the least complex in description and seemed to
reﬂect the least concern from the women interviewed.

On the whole, relationships within lesbian mother families were highly
likely to be characterized as positive. Satisfaction with relationships within the
household was very high as well. Themes related to family relationships were

diverse and reﬂected the wide variance of family type, family history,

103

developmental stages of children and families and other factors. The implications

of this analysis are discussed in Chapter 6.

104

Chapter 5

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES AND THE SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENT

In this study, each interview respondent was asked to identify and
describe relationships between her household and individuals I institutions
interacting with her family. In addition to naming relationship type and level of
satisfaction with each relationship, the participant was asked to describe how the
interaction was supportive of the family and I or how the relationship provided
stress for the family.

This chapter describes the results of analysis for two of the classiﬁcations
of social environment data derived from the interviews. These two
classiﬁcations, children’s schools and lesbian mothers’ work, were selected
because of my own interest in the areas, and because of their relevance to the
daily lives of lesbian mother families. Interaction between family and school and
between family and work place was universal in the respondent sample, despite
diversity in terms of children’s ages and family incomes. School and work
illustrate two of the important systems experienced by families. They also
exemplify some of the most pervasive stressors in the lives of lesbian mother
families. Table 13 summarizes relationship themes for household-school and
household-work interactions.

WM
Of the 15 families represented by the interviewees, 13 families had at

least one child who was enrolled in school at the time of the interviews. All

105

participant families are included in this analysis, though, because even the two
families without students in their households had some interaction with school
systems. Julie and Joan, whose son did not yet attend school, began
negotiating with special education personnel around setting up an education plan
for their son in the months preceding their interviews. Lisa’s daughter was
enrolled in a local preschool, until about one month before the interview. The girl
began having problems at school when she moved to a new classroom, and so
was withdrawn from school. At the time of the interview, Lisa’s daughter was
receiving home-based day care. In these two families, data on the interactions
with school systems were considered in the qualitative analysis, even though
relationship type and satisfaction levels were not recorded.

In all, at the time of the interviews, six of the respondents’ children
attended preschool, while 20 children were enrolled in kindergarten through
grade 11. Five very young children did not attend school. This section includes
data on family relationships with all levels of children’s education, including
preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools.

All respondents with children enrolled in school at the time of the
interviews provided data on relationship type and satisfaction level. Two
interviewees indicated more than one relationship type for the household —school
system interaction, because they perceived signiﬁcant differences between their
children’s schools. Eighty percent (n=16) of household-school system
relationships were characterized as ‘strong I positive.’ Three relationships (15%)

were reported as ‘non-interactive.’ The non-interactive relationships occurred

106

within two families: Joni reported that there is no interaction between her family
and the school attended by her partner’s ward, and both Lynn and Cara reported
that their family has no interaction with Cara’s children’s school because the
children’s father has physical custody. Finally, one participant reported that the
relationship between her household and her son’s school was best characterized
by ‘a change in relationship’: Marla reported that recent administrative changes in
her son’s preschool had produced signiﬁcant changes that were perceived as
“mostly good” by the family.

Satisfaction with the household-school relationship was quite high.
Satisfaction levels ranged from ﬁve to seven on the 7-point scale, with a mean
satisfaction level of 6.22 (S_=.65). Despite these high marks, respondents
reported various concerns about interacting with their children’s schools. The
following sections detail the concerns.

School milieu. A theme that was central to many participants' interviews
was the mothers’ focus on the school environment. Respondents mentioned
concerns about the social climate and the physical surroundings of the schools,
including interactions between teachers and students, level of support for student
learning and development, and the quality of the curriculum. Most descriptions of
relationships with schools centered on mothers’ desires to ensure positive school
experiences for their children

The interview data suggest that the respondents’ had positive perceptions
of their children’s schools. Jocelyn called her son’s school “wonderful” for it’s

team teaching approach. Chloe reported that her daughter’s teachers “always

107

have something nice to say.” Connie described her three-year-old’s preschool as

“very supportive.” However, many interviewees seemed to suggest that their

positive experiences were unrelated to or in spite of their identities as lesbian-

mother families. For example, Alyce said:
“I think that the teachers (my son) has had have all been great. In terms
of dealing with us as a family and respecting each of us as parents, I don’t
think either of us have any real expectations that I don’t think any of
the classrooms did anything special to incorporate (his) family, but I didn’t
really push for that. But they’ve all been certainly respectful and
supportive.”

Only one respondent, Tamara, reported a positive experience directly related to

her status as a lesbian mother:
“It’s just been wonderful. They’ve been really supportive. I think the
neatest thing (was) the day I brought (the boys) into school, the school
secretary was really excited. Her son’s gay and she’s the co-chair of
PFLAG (a support group for parents of gays) and was very excited to have
a gay family ...isn’t that funny? We were having trouble getting records,
obviously. She went and researched this with the state library.. and got all
their records. She actually tracked down phone numbers that we had
been wanting to get a hold of, and you know... I don’t know, it just felt like
somebody who was really committed to, you know, helping us as a

family.”

108

When mothers reported overtly negative experiences, they usually
referred to the rationing of resources, rather than to conﬂict with individuals.
None of the negative experiences reported were related to the respondents’
sexual orientation. For example, Chandra related a story about moving to
another community in order to access special education services for her son after
attempts in her former district were frustrated by resource issues. Lisa related
that she withdrew her preschooler from a classroom when the girl began to have
behavioral problems. She said the teacher was “okay,” but that the classroom
was dreary and unfriendly. Resource issues were also a concern for Julie, who
has been advocating for a comprehensive special education program for her son:

“We have to struggle and ﬁght for every little scrap. You’re guaranteed

certain things by law, but unless you educate yourself, they’re not going to

tell you the things that you’re guaranteed by law. They’re going to try to
slip through with as little as they can, and so you have to be just
constantly educating yourself and even then, they still ﬁght you about
it.”

In addition to availability of material resources for children’s education,
respondents commented on the value of an atmosphere of tolerance and respect
for differences in schools. Many participants demonstrated a general concern
about the availability of curriculum content and interpersonal experiences with
racial I ethnic, cultural, and other forms of diversity. This theme was especially
salient for white participants with children of color, but participants who did not ﬁt

this description talked about it as well. Julie, for example, reported that her son's

109

disability and race were more of an issue for the school (and other service

providers) than was her sexual orientation.

Nearly everyone who mentioned diversity suggested that schools that
value diversity of any age are more likely to respond well to lesbian mother
families. In addition, a few participants mentioned that diversity in the school
environment had a direct beneﬁt to the development of their children. For
example, Amy, who lived in a rural area with a homogeneous (white) population,
reported that she drove her son 30 miles into the city to attend an integrated
preschool so that:

“He won’t grow up thinking that everyone is white. We want him to learn

that there all kinds of people in the world and everyone has value. He

won’t he can’t learn that unless he has the experience of playing with
them and.. having friends (that are diverse). And kids who grow up with
prejudice everyday, they can teach (my son) something about dealing with
people who don’t like us.”

Carolyn also implied that school diversity was a beneﬁt to her Asian daughters:
“They have all kinds of people (at the school) which is another reason we
chose them. They have foreign families. They have back-to-work welfare
moms. It’s very multicultural. It truly is multicultural. It’s the only place I
found that wasn’t white with a few others (added in). And I like that
(because) our family is different and our kids are not white. (Experiencing

a multicultural setting) is one of my values. It always has been. I’ve

110

always been in a work situation that is racially mixed and that is a high

priority for me. I don’t want to be in an all-white environment in anything.”

Inﬂuencing_attitudes toward lesbian mother families. Many of the women
who mentioned school environment also described their active participation in the
schools as a method of contributing to the schools. Involvement with their
children’s educational experiences included interactions with teachers,
administrators, support staff, coaches, and children’s peers. For example,
Carolyn, whose two daughters attend preschool, reported that she tries to
participate in all the girls’ class ﬁeld trips and that she interacts with the
classroom teacher every day. Although parents in the middle childhood and
adolescence groups were less involved in their children’s schools, some reported
impressive levels of involvement as well. Terry mentioned that her partner, Joni,
was quite active in the school’s parent teacher association and had served as the
president of the organization in the past. Even Chloe, whose schedule was
overcrowded with work, graduate school and other responsibilities of single
parenting, complained, “I don’t get to volunteer as much as I’d like.”

The high level of parental involvement reported in these interviews had
obvious potential beneﬁts for these families. Some parents, of course, received
satisfaction simply from contributing to their children’s school experiences.
Others hoped to directly inﬂuence the school milieu to be more welcoming to
lesbian mother families. Kerry, for example, explained why she and her partner
had invested in their children’s elementary school even before the children began

attending:

111

“Actually, we were involved in the school when it was (in) development
stages. And we went to several of the meetings and they were working on
the wording of some of the things, and we wanted to know if they would
change (the language) from ‘mother and father’ to ‘parents’ or something
else. At least (we had) some input.”
Alyce’s description of her family’s strategy with the schools reﬂects remarkably
similar goals. She described how she and her partner both found time to be
active in her son’s school:

“ When (my son) was younger, we were both equally involved. I'd say we

both went to school once a week for different things. And from ﬁrst grade

on, we were in the classroom. Kids, starting in the ﬁrst grade knew that

(our son) had two moms. That was just the way it was, and I’m really,

really glad we did that. I think that was really important, and not only for

our satisfaction, but also for (our son) to know that it wasn’t anything that
he had to hide or worry about because we were just there. As he’s
gotten older, there’s less opportunities for parents in the classroom, so it’s
been harder. But actually I’d say it’s still pretty equal.”

The idea that these mothers participated in school life in order to increase
the school’s adaptation to lesbian mother families is supported by participants’
statements that visibility of lesbian mother families contributed to a safer
environment for their children. A few of the respondents mentioned that the
schools already felt safe, in part because other lesbian mother families were

already in evidence in the school. Connie for example, thought that her

112

daughter’s school accepted her family because they “have had a lesbian family
before.” Marla also mentioned that the school’s experience with gay and lesbian
parents was a part of the appeal of her daughters’ school:

“We live in (a liberal urban area) and we go to the open school, and that

makes a huge difference because we’re not the only lesbian family. It’s a

very forward, more liberal, sort of thinking thing anyway, because it’s not

your regular, rigid sort of typical public school. And so I think we have
some different a_ll_§gr_t§ of families that attend."

Managing disclosure about sexual orientation. As these comments
suggest, most respondent comments indicated an overall positive experience
with school. Nevertheless, many interviews revealed evidence of stress as well.
Nearly all descriptions of interpersonal stressors in the school system dealt with
parents coming out to school personnel in order to clarify their family structure,
roles, division of labor, authority or other factors related to improved relationships
with teachers and administrators. Struggling to come out as a ‘two-mom family, ‘
gauging how open to be with each of the various individuals in the schools, and
learning to ﬁnd effective and socially appropriate arenas for educating and
advocating on behalf of their families, were important issues for these women.

Managing disclosure about sexual orientation was a central issue for most
parents. Participants described their rationales, strategies and feelings about
self-disclosure with varying levels of emotion. Although coming out to the
schools was not presented as a crisis in any case, it did seem to be a nearly

universal stressor. The women interviewed here managed this issue in various

113

ways. Carolyn described how she directly approached the issue of her sexual
orientation with a preschool:

“I said, ‘We’re a lesbian couple and what problems are you going to have.’

I do it to ﬁsh — see what their reaction is. And I ﬁnd that child care people

are pretty devoted to children and they want to support the family of the

children. They’re a special kind of people I think.
Similarly, Alyce said that she has always been very open with the school. She
described her family’s strategy for getting her son into a classroom with a
supportive teacher:

“At the beginning of each school year they have (a process) for choosing a

teacher. We kind of felt that out, and looked for a teacher who we

anticipated to be a little more liberal and accepting. In the ﬁnal paragraph
of every single letter, (we wrote) We want (our son) to be in a classroom
environment that will foster acceptance for his family which is

[laughing] and then we’d state it (that they are a lesbian mother family).

And, you know, we’ve been pretty successful with teachers.”

As stories like Carolyn’s and Alyce’s suggest, the lesbian mothers in this
sample had a surprisingly high level of openness and assertiveness overall. It
should be noted, though, that both Carolyn and Alyce live in a unique area of the
state, in which socially liberal attitudes are paired with highly visible services for
lesbians. Nevertheless, some women in other areas were also quite open about
their sexual orientation as a matter of course. Kerry’s response to a question

about whether or not she was out to her children’s teachers was:

114

“ Well, we have to do that all the time. We just tell it like it is...you know...

‘I am one of (the kids’) mothers. I am one of (their) parents.’

In most cases, participant’s openness with the schools interacted with
partner status. That is, an interviewee often pointed to her partner’s presence as
evidence that she is lesbian. Thus attending to school business as a couple
substituted for coming out for some of the women who were coupled. However,
absence of a partner who interacted with the school system was seen as a
hindrance to communicating about sexual orientation in the schools. As noted
above, Kerry reported that she identiﬁed herself to school personnel as “one of
the mothers” in her family. When asked if the school understood that her status
as parent is the result of her relationship with the children’s (biological) mother
rather than with their father, Kerry noted that she depends on the presence of her
partner to conﬁrm her point:

“We have meetings with the teachers and (my partner and I are)

together, and we’re talking about when (the children are) at our house,

and then we’re talking about when they’re at their f§_t_h_e_if_s house.”
In contrast, Jocelyn had not had a steady partner until recently, and was not sure
if the school realized that she is lesbian. Interestingly, she also indicated that her
partner’s presence has contributed to efforts to be increasingly open at school:

“(My partner) has attended a lot of extra-curricular activities — a lot of

social functions (at school). I’ll start bringing her more as her time permits

and when she feels comfortable, and as (my son) feels comfortable. I’m

comfortable with that.

115

Invisibilitv of non-biological mothers. While many of the interviewees
expressed a conviction that appearing in pairs at school-related meetings, social
events, and other activities was an effective way to communicate about their
lesbian identity, most were uncomfortable with announcing their sexual
orientation in interactions with the schools. Thus, most had never conﬁrmed
face-to—face that their children’s teachers or principals understood that they are
lesbian. In fact, a few respondents reported that school personnel sometimes
assumed that the lesbian couple had another (non-partner) relationships with
each other. In each of these cases, the non-biological parents were assumed to
have non-parental relationships with the children. For example, workers in her
son’s preschool assumed that Amy was her son’s grandmother, until she tried to
clarify that she was his parent. When that description seemed to cause
additional confusion, she “announced” that she is his mother's partner. Similarly,
Tamara, who was hoping that her foster children would be released for adoption
at an upcoming murt date, described her ambivalence about being misidentiﬁed:

“A lot of people assume we’re sisters [laughing]. And at this point, until we

get through this next court date, I don’t’ feel like we can address any of

this (because it might impact our eligibility for adoption)”

While none of these misinterpretations appeared to be overtly malicious,
they were a source of considerable frustration to respondents. The underlying
sense of being misunderstood or invisible was plain.

In addition to the social invisibility of lesbian parenting, respondents who

were non-biological mothers described a sort of self-imposed invisibility as a way

116

of dealing with the social and legal ambivalence of their places in the family.
Amy, the non-biological mother who was identiﬁed as her son’s grandmother,
and who has parented her child since his birth, stated:

“I feel like I have less legal rights because we haven’t been able to do

the (second-parent) adoption, l have no real rights. And so I feel like

people want to deal with (my partner). You know, it’s m for me to pick
him up and stuff, but I’m not the one who can sign things. Well, I can
we have a legal document that gives me the right - a thing that has to be
renewed every six months but it’s, like, not as 9_fﬂr_:i_a_l.”

In blended families, the theme of self-imposed segregation from the
school was often entangled with concerns about displacing ‘Iegitimate’ parents.
Three families included biological parents who were divorced but both actively
involved with the schools. In two of these, Kelsie I Candace’s and Lynn I Cara’s,
the new partner deferred to the child’s biological parents in the ‘formal’ arena of
the school system. Candace, the ‘new’ parent in her family, explained:

“Oh, I don’t talk to the teachers! I feel that that’s not my place because of

(Kelsie’s ex-husband). You know, he wouldn’t like that (my daughter)

has asked me before, ‘Why don’t you go to my parent-teacher

conferences?’ but [long pause] I’m sure' (my son) is perfectly happy
with the way it is, but I think that (my daughter) would like it (if I was more
involved). But I don’t feel it's my place.”

Not every family with a history of parental divorce or separation had a non-

biological mother who is invisible in the schools. Kerry is very actively involved in

117

all aspects of her children’s school. (Interestingly, her family was also the
exception in the trend for blended families to experience conﬂict in the step
parent-step child relationship.) In other families, where the children’s father has
minimal involvement, the ‘new’ parent is active with the children’s schools. Lisa
and Chandra, for example, both described their partners as assuming signiﬁcant
responsibility for the children’s school-related interactions. This involvement was
invariably characterized as beneﬁcial in the household-school relationship.
Chandra described the teachers’ positive response to her partner's involvement
in the schools:
“They’re really supportive I think its because they know we care. And
it’s blown them away. It’s blown them away. and they knew (my ex-
husband) and I, kind of, because we were together about a year when the
kids started going there. But he’s been such an ass that he’s blown it.
He’s not shown the kind of support and interest that (my partner) and l
have. You know, she’s gone to the special ed. meetings, and she goes to
the conferences. And, you know they see her reaction when she looks at
the kids’ schoolwork and she goes ‘Oh look and giggles. And they can tell
that she truly loves them, but he hasn’t done that. I mean he hasn’t ever
shown that. I don’t’ mean that to be mean about him. It’s just honestly
truthful. Because he loves his children but he’s not a responsible parent.
He doesn’t really care what they do in school. It’s mom’s job.”
Impact on children. A ﬁnal theme in the data on the household-school

relationship was mothers’ concerns about the impact of disclosure of the parents’

118

sexual orientation on their children. In general, participants indicated that they
were least worried about the reactions of school faculty and administrator, and
most concerned about the reactions of children’s peers. Tamara’s description of
her family’s level of openness is typical:

“But all the teachers have been real open, and, you know, we both went in

for conferences. I don’t know. If (the children are) getting any negativity

on that, we’re not aware at all.”

Other parents mentioned that their children already experience some level
of negative attention from peers because of the mothers’ orientation. Keny
reported that peers have teased her son, a ﬁfth grader:

“(My son) gets ribbed about his mother being a lesbian. He has to deal

with that. It wasn’t easy for him. It hasn’t been ...it wasn’t easy for him. It

hasn’t been as bad this year (because adults at school have intervened).
Alyce reported that she was suspicious of the reactions of a minority of her son’s
peers’ parents:

“So, in terms of the other parents at school, again, nobody has ever -

they’re awfully polite over there — so nobody has ever said things. There

are a few families, who I wonder. Who (my son has) never really
connected with or gone over to their houses or anything. And, you know,
of course I look at that a little more closely than he does. He doesn’t really
care because he’s got plenty of friends. But I wonder if it really had more

to do with us.”

119

Although none of the participants reported that their children experienced
severe harassment at school, most mothers continue to practice caution about
coming out in situations where the children are likely to be impacted. Jocelyn is
one participant for whom this issue is particularly salient. At the time of her
interview, Jocelyn’s partner was just beginning to be integrated into the public life
of the family. She describes how she approached the issue with her son:

“I’ve already asked him questions, like ‘(my partner) would like to come

watch you play (on a school sports team). Would that be okay? Would

you feel uncomfortable if (partner) came with me?’ And he said ‘Nol I

would like that!’ So, I don’t know if he knew what level I was talking about.

He might have thought I meant just ‘Would that be okay?’ instead of ‘You

might be getting added questions from your friends.’ You know, ‘Who is

that woman with your mom?’ We didn’t go into detail and we should do
that.”

In spite of their caution, most participants acknowledged that at least
some of their children’s friends knew about the mothers’ sexual orientation. In
most cases, peers knew about the family because parents had come out to
school personnel, and had integrated themselves into the life of the school. In
other cases, the children themselves had disclosed the mother’s orientation.
Some children, like Chloe’s 10-year—old daughter, told only their closest friends.
Others had children who disclosed to groups of peers, or even entire classrooms.
These disclosures seemed to happen ‘naturally’ in the context of the children’s

activities in the classroom and on the playground. Both Kelsie and Candace

120

described an incident in which their 13 year-old daughter tried to inscribe a
woodworking project “To the best dyke mom in the world.” Interestingly,
Candace added that “they wouldn’t let her put in on there because they didn’t
believe her (that her mother is lesbian)”

For Chandra, her child’s ability to be open about her family was a sign of a
healthy child, as well as a supportive school environment. In the midst of her
interview, Chandra retrieved a mother’s day card from a stack of children’s
artwork on a nearby table. She proudly showed the interviewer her older
daughter’s hand-drawn portraits of Chandra and her partner, and read the
inscription aloud:

“Isn’t that neat? [showing the card to the interviewer] And then she wrote

[reading from the card]: Goes roller blading with me - mom. Does my

homework with me - (partner). Cheers me up when I am sad — morn.

Buys me stuff when she goes away on a plane - (partner). Likes to go out

and get me school clothes - mom. Makes me feel warm inside -

(partner). Tucks me in at night — mom. Lets me work on the car with her

- (partner). Doesn’t care what I look like - mom. Isn’t that cute? And,

look, here’s (partner) and here’s me [laughing]. She worked so hard on it.

Most of her drawings (at school) are mom and (partner). To have a joint

Mother’s Day card. [pause] She worked so hard on it.”

Thinking about her older daughter’s openness in the classroom prompted

Chandra to add:

121

“(My six year old daughter) has got sharing, you know, every Monday and
Wednesday. It’s nothing profound, but, if they didn’t share about our
family, that would be sad. And, to be closeted, that would be really hard
for my kids. Just like if I was closeted, it would be really hard for (my
partner) and I.”

Throughout the data on the household-school relationship, mothers
reﬂected that they felt compelled to struggle with issues of milieu and self-
disclosure in spite of their difﬁculty. The school experience was seen as central
to children’s emotional and social development, as well as to their academic
achievement. Each parent interviewed was hopeful that her children would
negotiate the school system with some success. Alyce summarized her attitude
about her son’s future experiences:

“People say, ‘Wait ‘til middle school. Wait ‘til middle school.’ I do

anticipate some change but I’m still optimistic. Our approach isn’t going to

be any different. We’re going to be as out as possible. I mean, we’re not
going to try and hide anything and I think that he feels ﬁne with that. I just
think it’s really important to be out and to not feel like and not have your

m feel like there’s some skeleton in the closet that they can’t talk about.

And he knows there are some kids who are not going to accept it and he

knows there are some who will.”

As the data on relationships between lesbian mother families and schools
indicate, mothers experienced some stress at the intersection of home and

school. Mothers expressed concern about the quality of their children’s

122

experiences, particularly related to ‘being different.’ Mothers’ responses to these
concerns were to select schools known for multiculturalism, and to increase
direct contact with teachers, administrators and children’s peers in order to
promote acceptance of lesbian mother families as part of the school milieu.
Managing disclosure about sexual orientation was a primary issue for many of
the women interviewed, but issues of invisibility complicated coming out in the
schools, especially for non-biological mothers.
Relationships With Parents’ Work

Of the 15 households represented by interviewees, all contained at least
one adult worker. Most (80%) of the families had two incomes, but only a third of
the households had two full-time workers. The work lives of the participant
families were complex. Family employment arrangements ranged from Chloe’s
(a single woman with a part-time job) to Terry and Joni’s (two full-time workers).
Household income level, of course, varied accordingly. Tables 1 and 2
summarize income and work status for the interview sub-sample.

Twelve (57%) of the women interviewed worked full-time. Six others
(29%) identified themselves as part-time workers. Candace, Carolyn, Chloe,
Chandra, Tamara and Jocelyn ﬁt into the part-time employee category. In
addition, Amy reported that her partner is a part-time worker, bringing the total
number of families with part-time workers to seven. Three respondents do not
receive any wages: Julie and Connie are full-time care givers to their children,

while Lisa divides her time between care giving and college. Although their

123

unpaid work is important to the functioning of their families, because it occurred
wimp} the respondent households, it will not be considered in this analysis.

Participant families were unusually creative and enterprising regarding
employment. Three of the women interviewed (14%) are self—employed or
entrepreneurs: Carolyn teaches martial arts and manages investment property,
Alyce owns a retail business and Marla operates a home-based daycare
business. A total of seven families (47%) include adult students. Five of the
participants and two of their partners were enrolled in bachelor, master or PhD.
programs.

All respondents provided data on household-employment relationship type
and satisfaction. Each interviewee who lived in a household with two incomes
was asked to provide data on her own work and on her partner’s work. Thus,
most interviews yielded two relationship types and two satisfaction levels. In
addition, four women indicated two relationship types for a single work situation
because of complexity in the work environment.

Seventy percent (n=14) of household—employment relationships were
characterized as ‘strong I positive’ for respondent’s work. In addition, one
respondent who identiﬁed the household-work relationship as ‘a change in
relationship’ added that the changes were very positive. Two women labeled
their household-employment relationship as ‘stressful I negative.’ Two others
said that the relationship was ‘tenuous I strained.’ Only one respondent indicated

that her employment was ‘non—interactive’ with her household. Satisfaction with

124

the household-respondent’s work relationship ranged from two to seven on the 7-
point scale. Mean satisfaction was 5.67 (S_D=1.37).

Results for partner’s work were remarkably similar. Sixty ﬁve percent
(n=13) of partner’s work relationships were labeled as ‘strong I positive.’ Again, a
single respondent identiﬁed the household-work relationship as ‘a change in
relationship’ and indicated that work was “getting more positive.” One woman
labeled the household-partner’s work relationship as ‘stressful I negative,’ and
two said it was ‘tenuous I strained.’ Another three respondents said that their
households were ‘non-interactive’ with partners’ work. Respondents’ satisfaction
with the relationship between their family and partners’ work ranged from three to
seven on the 7-point scale. The mean was 5.41 (spa .58).

Overall, employed respondents held jobs that were above average in
salary and prestige, which may account for some of their positive perceptions of
the interactions between households and work. Interestingly, all household-work
relationships identiﬁed as ‘stressful I negative’ referred to respondents’ or
partners’ jobs in the social service ﬁeld. Household-work relationships
characterized as ‘tenuous I strained’ were accompanied by descriptions of jobs
that interfered with workers’ time and energy for the family. ‘Non-interactive’
relationships occurred only in blended families. These patterns prompt a deeper
examination of the relationships between work and family. The following
sections provide details about the work-related themes expressed by lesbian

mothers in their interviews.

125

Instrumental support. One theme central to relationships between lesbian
mother households and mothers’ work environments was the availability of
instrumental support for the family of the worker. Although most respondents
mentioned salary and beneﬁts when asked to describe supports and stressors in
the household-work relationship, their comments did not suggest that money was
the only motivation for their work. Terry, the only interview respondent who
described her work-household relationship as non-interactive, described her job
as a ﬁnance professional:

“If I could get paid more money for doing something else, or the same

amount of money, then I would do something else. But I like what I do. If

it didn’t require 40-45 hours a week, that would be even better. But if I

didn’t like it, I wouldn’t be there.”

Alyce was similarly ambivalent about her work as co-owner of a retail business.
Her comments reveal her struggle to balance her independence and creativity
with ﬁnancial responsibilities:

“I think the work we do is really important and really great, gig I think that

retail can be kind of a burnout. And, um, we’ve been open (several)

years. I thought we would be a little more ﬁnancially stable by now and
able to contribute a little more to personal income. and that affects my
satisfaction for sure. It’s getting to the point where I feel like something
has to change.”

Like Terry and Alyce, most respondents were clear that, while salary was

important, other factors mattered as well. Thus, comments about compensation

126

were often tied to other concerns, such as the schedule of the full-time worker, or
the ways in which one partner’s salary allowed the other partner to be more
available to the children. Alyce, whose partner provided the majority of income in
her family, stated simply: “If (my partner) didn’t have her job, I wouldn’t be in my
job.” Chandra echoed this theme in describing her partner's work:
“She’s full time - she’s eight to ﬁve — and she makes good money. That’s
part of the reason I got to go down to part time - because she had a job
change and makes good money. She makes $18 an hour, and I make $8,
so there’s quite a difference. She’s the primary breadwinner.”
Carolyn, whose part time work supplements her partner’s salary, also alluded to
the interaction between her ﬂexibility and her partner’s work:
“Right now it’s very positive. It’s only been a year (since I stopped working
full time) and it’s evolving. You know, it ‘s just evolving. l have the good

fortune of not having to make the money. I mean, I need to make some

 

money to pay for the kids to go to school, but my partner makes a lot of

money, and l have that luxury.

Non-salary beneﬁts were of central importance to the relationships
between these families’ and the work place, as well. Health insurance for
partners and partners’ children was most often mentioned as a desired, but
unavailable, form of instrumental support. For most families, lack of beneﬁts for
family members meant that one partner, and sometimes the children, bought

health insurance independently or had no health coverage. In all families, then,

127

health coverage was uneven, complex, and a source of some concern and
resentment. Lynn described her partner’s work:

“(Cara) has pp beneﬁts. That’s (a) big negative. I can’t carry her on mine,

but I can cany (the baby) so (the baby) and I have full beneﬁts. And

Cara’s - l B have to pay for. I mean, she has no retirement. Nothing.
Similarly, Chandra, who worked 25 hours a week, had a partner whose full time
job offered excellent beneﬁts, but not for Chandra or the children. Thus, Chandra
went without health coverage. She described what happened when she changed
jobs so that she could be available to her children after school:

“And I also lost medical insurance so the kids are on Medicaid. The kids

are on Medicaid, which I never have done, but what do you do?”

Although many respondents described themselves as open about their
sexual orientation at work, statements about beneﬁts discrimination were often
accompanied by references to the heterosexism of the work environment. Overt
and subtle threats to job security, and concern about interruptions in
interpersonal relationships were issues for respondents who desired insurance
coverage for partner or dependents. Kerry’s description is typical. When asked
to describe the supports and stressors of the work place, she replied simply:

“The beneﬁt package is a stressor. Lack of beneﬁts for my partner. (And)

there’s always the threat of not spoken threat of being discriminated

against at work because of orientation.”

The only one of the respondents ever to have had access to domestic

partner beneﬁts in the work place was Carolyn, whose former employer was a

128

pioneer in offering health insurance and other beneﬁts to same sex partners.
Carolyn laughed when the interviewer asked if she had taken advantage of the
domestic partner beneﬁts in that job. Her description of her experience with that
employer contradicts its image as a supportive, liberal environment:

‘I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Well it was a great job, but a

combination of dysfunctional work place, anti-gay, right wing creeps.

You know, I was adopting children and I was scared to tell anyone

because I was afraid someone would stop it because I was (lesbian).

(There were) some real anti-gay people there. The most wonderful

experience of my life (adopting the girls) and l was scared to death, you

know?”

In addition to comments about salary and health insurance, respondents
mentioned the value of job stability and security as forms of instrumental support
in the work place. These factors were particularly important to the nine families in
which income from one partner supported the rest of the family. Amy, whose
salary supported her partner's graduate education as well as household
expenses, mentioned that she disliked her job but chose to stay because:

“I’ve been there so long, it would be hard to start somewhere new -

somewhere where I wouldn’t have any guarantees (of job security).

And I couldn’t really leave now anyway. How could we pay the bills?”
Carolyn also mentioned that her partner’s job security was the foundation for

their family-work arrangement. Without her partner's salary, Carolyn would have

129

to return to full-time work and would no longer be available to their children
during the day:

“We hope that she stays there until she retires, but you never know. If that

work situation changes, then everything changes for us.”

A few women mentioned more serious concerns about job stability.
Chandra, for example, mentioned that her partner worked under the supervision
of someone who disliked her. As Chandra’s ability to remain a part time worker
hinges on her partner’s wages, her ambivalence and anxiety about the situation
are evident:

“(My partner‘s) direct supervisor doesn’t like her. She doesn’t like him,

which I don’t (blame her for). It’s very stressful for her. Well, it’s secure

because the guy above likes her, and he knows she’s a dedicated
employee and it’s secure in that fact. (My partner’s) a real employable
person, (but) I worry that you aren’t going to ﬁnd that pay a lot of places.

But she’s a hard worker so I think she’s I don’t know. I wouldn’t call it

secure. Secure is a strong word to use for it, but I don’t know. I can see

this (supervisor) guy walking in one day and saying ‘Guess what?’ He’s
done that. I mean recently. It wouldn’t be unique to that place.”

Intemrsonal support. A second central theme of the respondents’
descriptions of household-work relationships was the availability of interpersonal
support in the work place environment. Surprisingly, none of the interviewees
made interpersonal relationships primary to their descriptions of their interactions

with work. Nevertheless, most respondents mentioned co-workers or clients at

130

some time in the interviews. Nearly all respondents reported being out as
lesbians at work, and most described interpersonal relationships that had a
positive impact on the household-work interaction. Candace described her
partner, Kelsie’s work as positive almost entirely because of Kelsie’s
relationships with co-workers:

“Kelsie’s out at work. She talks about our relationship and it’s very

supportive, because she has people to talk to and that makes you feel

good about yourself.“
Similarly, Chandra, who works in an elementary school, described the person-to-
person interaction as a highlight of her job:

(The relationship type’s) gotta be strong positive because I get along with

everybody there. There’s the pay, yeah, but what’re you going to do? It’s

the one negative. It’s actually a dream job, and I like working with the kids
too - they crack me up. What job do you have that, when you walk in,
everybody jumps up and hugs you? Everybody’s happy to see you and
they run down to me. You don’t walk into the ofﬁce (in most jobs) and
have people do that. I get hugs and smiles and giggles.”

Many participants imbedded content on interpersonal relationship in data
on other work place issues. Here Bonnie described the way that her co-workers
help her deal with a difﬁcult supervisor:

“We have ﬁve people in our (work place) and I get along well with them.

(My supervisor) is, in my opinion, like - hyperactive attention deﬁcit.

[laughing] You can’t ever he’s like bouncing off the walls some days

131

and you just don’t know what to expect with the boss. But the rest of us

know it.”

In a few cases, the value of adult interaction on the job was most evident
in comments from and about women who were stay-at-home mothers. That is,
interpersonal support as a beneﬁt of employment was most evident in its
absence. Julie described her reaction to staying home with her son:

“I think part of it is, because you know, this is really the ﬁrst time that I

haven’t been working. And you get a lot of your self-esteem form working.

So even though I am working, it’s just not the same as working out in the

public. You know, even though I get a lot of kudos for how well (my child)

is doing, (it’s not the same)”
Similarly, Bonnie described her partner, Connie’s, experience with being an at-
home mother:

“I think it’s the only thing we can do right now, and so I really like it. But I

do want - I would like within six months or something for her to start

working part time because I’m just afraid that too long out of the workforce
is not such a good thing (for her emotionally)”

In addition, to comments on the beneﬁts of interpersonal relationships at
work, a few respondents mentioned less-positive interactions with co-workers
and supervisors. As noted above, Chandra mentioned that her partner’s conﬂict
with her supervisor could threaten her job security. Similarly, Bonnie, an attorney
with a fairly prestigious job, commented that she felt little control in her

relationship with her supervisor:

132

“My job right now... you know, I sit at a computer. I do research and
writing. And then when the (supervisor) wants to take a sudden jaunt, I’m
taking a sudden jaunt. And then I’m back, but I’m not in control of
anything at all. It’s like a little slave and slave master kind of situation.

Just you and him.”

Several women reported that anti-lesbian sentiment created noxious work
environments. Carolyn reported on a past position in which she worked with
“anti-gay right wing creeps.” Amy revealed that, after coming out at work, her
colleagues began to avoid her. Candace also mentioned that her partner has
had some interruption in co-worker relationships since coming out as lesbian:

“She has received some grief from people. Just a lot of her closer friends

let her go at work because of the divorce. They were friends with (Kelsie’s

ex-husband) and Kelsie. And she let (her ex-husband) go And then I

think (it was) probably me being with a woman. I think that they

(thought) ‘How could she give up a man for a woman?’

Marla, too, reported that attitudes toward lesbian and gay issues in the work
place has impacted her partner's interpersonal experiences at work:

“This work environment is so much better for her than her last work

environment, where there was a principal who, just right in front of the

whole school, was cutting down gays and everything. It was just the most

awful environment. She was the only, that she knew of, gay person on the

 

staff. Now, this is a much different working environment. She has open

gay staff members and it feels much more supportive.”

133

ln Tamara’s case, the interaction with her co-workers was a combination
of support and frustration. Tamara described her relationships in an agency with
a high percentage of gay and lesbian employees:

“In general, compared to a lot of jobs, it’s been a really strong, supportive

relationship. Well, part of it (is) just being able to be real out here. And

you know, people knowing how much I wanted to have kids. And to be
supportive of that. At the same time, there aren’t a lot of people here with
kids, so it’s a real new area for some people.”

As these statements suggest, the issue of interpersonal support in the
work place was quite complex. Personality, work place culture and policies, job
type and setting all interacted with respondents’ styles of communication, degree
of openness and myriad other factors with various outcomes.

lntgration of work and family. Another major theme of household-work
relationships was related to the ways that work place supports allowed
respondents to be available for their children. This focus on integrating work and
family was the theme expressed most often by the women interviewed.

One way that respondents measured the potential integration of work and
family was in the ﬂexibility offered by the work place. Allowance for variations in
scheduled work hours, and schedules that paralleled school and day care were
considered valuable perks to these mothers. For example, when explaining her
decision to leave her former job‘s salary, beneﬁts and security, Carolyn said:

“No schedule ﬁts when you have kids. I don’t care what it is. You know,

you get a schedule, and then their naps change or their day care changes

134

because they get older. And then that doesn’t work any more. I didn’t

want to have to be somewhere (away from the kids).”

Similarly, Chandra compared her previous job with her current position:

“It was eight to ﬁve, and po_w I do nine to two, so that allows me to drive

the kids to school, and pick them up, and get dinner going, and make the

doctor appointments. All my doctor appointments are, like, at three or four
and I can take them myself. And talk to the teachers and whatever. Plus,

I’m off. I teach so I’m off, too, the same holidays as the kids are.”

Just as ﬂexibility was noted as a beneﬁt, any lack of availability for
children’s activities, appointments and other events was seen as a particular
hardship by these mothers. Tamara reported on her partner’s relatively new job:

“They’ve allowed her some ﬂexibility in her scheduling. But it’s tough.

She has to travel more, so that can be more of a challenge.”

Similarly, Julie commented on their son’s weekly medical and therapy
appointments, which her partner is unable to attend:

“It’s hard when there’s things going on that she should be a part of that

she gap! be a part of. I mean, she makes it to all of his major

appointments, but you almost kind of feel resentful that she can’t be there
for, like, the therapy appointments and things like that. Just so she can
see ﬁrst-hand what’s going on with him. Sometimes you just wish that she
could also hear how wonderful he’s doing, because I can tell her that but
it’s a lot different hearing me tell her second-hand what they’re saying than

it is for her to hear them say it.”

135

Even workers with positions that seemed to promise a high degree of
independence mentioned the desire to be more available for their children.
Alyce, an entrepreneur, described her work:

“The fact that the work that I do is retail and you have to be there the

hours when the store is open makes it kind of difﬁcult. Working nights, a

couple nights a week is hard. If the kids are sick, making sure that there’s

someone to cover the store. It makes it more difﬁcult, where if I were
working, even not as a business owner, I would have more ﬂexibility that
way.”

Another way that respondents measured the intersection of work and
family life was by co-workers’ and bosses’ expressions of acceptance of children.
Generally, familiarity with the needs of children and families, whether in formal
policy or in informal interaction, was considered an asset in the work place.
Thus, several respondents mentioned that allowing partners and children to call
the work place, including partners and children in work-related social activities,
and other related behaviors contributed to positive household-work relationships.

A few families experienced work as an agent separating the employee
from partner and children. Kerry described how her partner’s supervisor required
her partner to attend classes that take her away form the family nearly every
evening of the week. Jocelyn complained that her partner’s work hours were a

serious impediment to their time together. Julie described trying to call her

partner on the telephone:

136

“I always feel bad when I have to call (Joan) at work, because I’m afraid
that she’s gonna get in trouble. And so it’s stressful for me when I have to
call her. And if she has to take a day off, I’m always worried that she’s
gonna make somebody mad or get on somebody’s list. And it seems like,
just recently, she’s had to take more time off than normal because there’s
things going on (with our son).”

Simple access to family members who were out of the home all day was a
frequently-mentioned issue. Workplace policies that prohibited or discouraged
family communication were attributed to employers who were “business-minded”
or othenNise inhumane. In contrast, family-friendly practices in the work place
were often credited to administrators who were parents, or who liked children.
Julie continued:

“Joan’s just transferred jobs within the same company. The supervisor

that she had before was very supportive. He told her, ‘If you need off,

don’t worry about it. Take it.’ The supervisor that she has now has no
children, and has no real understanding of, you know, when your child is
sick or needs to go to the cardiologist. So it’s a little more strained than it
was before she transferred jobs.”
Similarly, work-related social activities that included partners and children were
mentioned as a support for families. Several respondents said that their partners
were “invited” to staff parties and comparable events. Fewer interviewees

mentioned that children were integrated into household-work relationships in this

137

way. Tamara described her childless co-workers’ failure to include her children
in an activity:

“I’ll give you an example. I thought this was real funny. Our staff said,

‘Let’s plan a trip to (an amusement park) or something. And basically

folks just said, ‘Okay, we’re all going to go, but just take partners, not kids.’

Can you imagine saying to your kids: ‘I’m sorry, I’m taking the day off,

going to (the amusement park) with my grown-up friends and you can’t

go?’ So, it’s like, ‘Have fun, you guys!”

Descriptions of work schedules, opportunities for time away from work to
attend to family business, and inclusion of partners and children in work-related
social activities reﬂected respondents’ desire to reconcile the need to work with
the responsibilities of parenting and family life. Those with employment that
allowed for integration of the two spheres invariably characterized their jobs as
sources of support for their families. Interestingly, the three respondents who
characterized household-work relationships as ‘stressful I negative’ on the
interview eco maps identiﬁed lack of integration between work and family as
primary stressors. These three families shared a number of characteristics: in
each, the oldest child was a pre-schooler, only one partner worked full-time, the
work place was a social service agency, and complaints centered around dislike
for the stressful work or unpleasant co—workers. For example, Amy described
her agency as rejecting her after she came out as lesbian. She described herself
as “cutoff from everyone there." Lisa’s partner worked a ﬂexible schedule, but

she had serious concerns about the administrators in her agency and worried

138

that ﬁscal mismanagement would lead to agency closure. Joan’s concerns,
documented above, focused on lack of ﬂexibility and fear of reprisal for needing I
wanting time off to be with her son. Respondents descriptions in all three cases
suggested that the combination of stressful work and noxious work environment
led to a lack of home-work integration, and thus contributed to poor household-
work relationships.

Strategies for balgncinglwork and family. As the data on integrating work
and family indicate, an important focus for the respondents was the stress that
they experienced in their dual roles as mothers and providers. Bonnie described
the problem:

“See, I feel like the ability to concentrate (at work) is way down because I

know I gotta do the dishwasher, and the laundry, and I just have to keep

going. And I have to ﬁll up the car with gas on Friday and on Sunday

and, you know, it’s so much (that) it’s hard to concentrate well.”

Respondents and their partners used a variety of strategies to manage the
stress of balancing work and home life. Many families chose to give up the
beneﬁts of two full time incomes in favor of greater ﬂexibility and availability to
children. Others located full time positions that offered greater freedom to
schedule their work hours around their children’s needs. A few families,
especially those with older children, managed to maintain full-time work with little
interruption.

A small portion of the sample reported keeping personal and family

spheres as separate as possible. The disconnection between work and home

139

occurred only in families in which the worker was a step parent in the household.
Beyond that commonality, the separation seemed to be unique in each of the
families. Chandra’s partner was described as a person who “just doesn’t talk
about things” in her corporate job. Candace described her part time work in an
ofﬁce where she is the only female employee:

“Well, I’ve not really told anyone (that I’m lesbian). I work with all men. ...I

love my job. I just don’t I keep my personal life, my personal life and

my work life, my work life.”

Terry’s position about dissociating personal and professional roles was the
most strongly stated. She explained why she does not pursue interpersonal
relationships at work beyond those required to get her job done:

“Yeah I have people that are supportive, but it’s not really required. For

me, since I’m a manager at work, my whole philosophy since I started

working, is that I’ve seen too many women, in particular, where no matter
how supportive companies are, they tend to pick on personal issues for
women. So what I do is, I do my job. I do it well. You know, I advance

through my career but I don’t bring the personal side into it, because I

don’t want that to be an inﬂuence. I’ve seen it happen too many times,

with women in particular.

Terry’s depiction of the work place as a place to “do my job (and) do it
well” was not common in this sample. In truth, there was a remarkable lack of
focus on ambition, professional accomplishment, or the details of careers,

considering the level of education and expertise in the group of interviewees.

140

More frequently, respondents reported on ways that they worked to balance work
and family without separating the two completely. In addition to choosing
employment that allowed for increased ﬂexibility in work hours, several
respondents mentioned strategies for m the impact of work life in the home.
Jocelyn, for example described her family’s simple strategy for controlling the
impact of her partner’s work on the family:

“(My partner’s) been going through a lot of changes at work with

management. She’s gone .. She works 12 hour days, ﬁve days a week.

Usually, no less than 12 hours. Sometimes 14! Her schedule’s always

changing. She’s stressed. Sometimes, you know, she brings home work,

like we all do, and she’s stressed about it for a while. And she gets a lot of
calls, you know, because she’s the chef and a lot of kitchen managers call
with questions, you know, if there’s a problem with an order. So she tends
to get calls at home. Sometimes they’re late night calls because the
restaurant closes .. sometimes they’re closing till 12 or 1 am. So we’ve
got calls at midnight before. Now, we just don’t answer (the phone). We
just don’t answer it.”

Another, more common, strategy mentioned by respondents combined
worker efﬁciency with work place ﬂexibility. This approach often resulted in
increased interaction between work place and home life, with the worker
asserting control and independence in the relationship. Amy reported: “I take off
as much time as I can get away with” to be available for her son. She

sometimes ﬂexes her schedule without consulting with anyone so that she can

141

provide transportation, after-school care and other needs. Lynn takes her infant
to work with her nearly every day, sometimes even asking her supervisor to care
for the child when she has to attend to business that cannot include the baby.
Similarly, Bonnie described her philosophy regarding time spent at work:

“How much time do I go to work? As little as possible! [laughing]

Literally, as little, to the limit, as possible! And, right now, I’m really

fortunate in that I’m exclusively an employee of this (supervisor) and I

don’t answer to anybody but him. And if he’s not physically in the ofﬁce,

ten minutes later I leave. Because I’m really efﬁcient I do the minimum
that l have to do, but I do it as well as I can. I don’t overdo it and I work
less than 40 hours, by far, right now. I’m supposed to work 40 hours, and
if the judge stays till 10 pm, I have to stay till 10. And he has done that,
but it’s very rare. I haven’t worked a Friday in two months!”
Bonnie concluded with the announcement that she hopes to be able to
telecommute from home one day a week in the near future.

In all, respondents described a wide variety of pragmatic and creative
strategies for managing work and family. Throughout their interviews, these
women were clear that family is important to them, and thus worth the stress and
compromise of juggling dual roles. As with the comments on interactions with
children’s schools, respondents were quite optimistic about their ability to
manage their work lives in such a way as to maximize their effectiveness as
parents. The comments of Marla, who runs a child care business in her home,

reﬂect the sentiments of many of the mothers interviewed:

142

“At ﬁrst I was a little jealous of the time that the other kids took away from

my own kids. The reason I was doing this (child care business) was that I

wanted to be home with my M kids. It was me learning to put my own

priorities that my own kids come ﬁrst. These are my clients and my
charges and they’re very important too, but I’ve Ieamed how to work
that out and to balance it.”

The data on household-work relationships revealed that lesbian mothers
attend to both the instrumental and interpersonal aspects of employment.
Beneﬁts like salary, health insurance, and job security are highly valued. In the
same way, personal support, friendly interactions and the inclusion of partners
and children in the social aspects of the work culture are important. The need to
be both mother and worker was a source of stress for most of the women
interviewed. A few women coped with the pressure of the home-family
interaction by separating the spheres, but, as their work proﬁles indicate, many of
these women demonstrated willingness to take risks and to use creativity in the
workplace by balancing pay and perks with ﬂexibility in work schedules.

The relationships between lesbian mother families and their social
environments are fairly complex, and these analyses only begin to reveal the
experiences of this group of interviewees. The implications of these results and

suggestions for further results are discussed in Chapter 6.

143

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

These interviews with lesbian mothers provided deep and detailed data
about their experiences and concerns as members of marginalized families.
Because the 15 families in this study represented a range of family types,
including planned two-parent lesbian mother families, step parent families, and a
single parent family, the information gathered was both broad and complex. As a
result, the conclusions presented here both support previous studies of lesbian
mothers and suggest areas for future exploration. This ﬁnal chapter attempts to
examine themes drawn from the interview data in the context of the social
science literature. The emphasis of this examination is on summarizing the
relationship between this study and the existing literature on lesbian mothers. In
addition, implications of this study for policy, practice and research are
considered.

WM!

As Chapter 1 revealed, a substantial body of social science literature
already exists on the intra-family relationships of lesbian mother families and on
the interactions between these families and their social environments. Because
so few of the studies completed in the last 30 years captured respondents’
perspectives on the data collected, however, this project attempted to include
highly individual and speciﬁc information from the women interviewed. Thus,

although this study generally supported much of the research on lesbian mother

144

families, it also provided additional detail on the experiences and attitudes behind
the results. This section summarizes the results of the study and identiﬁes areas
of congruence with and deviation from previous research on lesbian mothers.

As reported in Chapter 4, respondents reported mostly positive
relationships within their families and indicated generally high levels of
satisfaction with all types of relationships within their households. For the families
represented in this study, the themes that characterize interactions between
partners, between parents and children, and between siblings suggest strong
commitments to maintenance of the family and to capitalizing on strengths and
opportunities in interpersonal interactions. Other themes highlighted areas of
stress, as well as strategies for coping with challenges to family survival and
success.

Results from this research support several earlier studies that reported
lesbian mothers are satisﬁed in their intimate relationships (Flaks, Ficher,
Masterpasqua & Joseph, 1995; Hand, 1991; Osterwiel, 1991; Patterson, 1995).
Satisfaction levels for partner relationships were high, and respondents’
comments on their relationships with partners included substantial focus on the
intensity and commitment of the friend I lover relationships. Besides this general
conﬁrmation of the existence of positive relationships, though, the data collected
here give hints about the tools used by lesbian parents to maintain satisfying
partnerships in the household. Their emphasis on communication and shared
interest in the family, both themes in the interview data, suggest that these

women enjoyed strong emotional and social afﬁliation with their partners. In

145

addition, their characterization of differences between partners as
complementary skills, and their stories of surviving adversity as a way of
reinforcing partner bonds reveal the interviewees’ focus on strengths. These
examples of resiliency and optimism in interpersonal relationships parallel
ﬁndings by Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray and Smith (1986) and by Pagelow
(1980), in which lesbians were found to use creative and assertive methods of
coping in the face of adversity.

A ﬁnal theme of the data on relationships between partners, roadblocks to
intimacy, support ﬁndings by McCandlish (1987) and Stiglitz (1990) in which
lesbian mothers with infants reported decreases in sexual contact and emotional
intimacy following the addition of a child to the household. In this study,
respondents with children of all ages reported difﬁculty in ﬁnding time for the
partner relationship, and several mentioned factors outside parent-child
relationship that contribute to the problem. Although respondents commented in
detail on their feelings of frustration about lack of time with their partners, this
study did not measure the amount of time partners actually spent together or the
frequency of partners’ sexual contact. For this reason, it is not possible to
identify if the felt lack of intimacy translated into true loss of physical or emotional
contact.

High respondent satisfaction levels for parent-child and sibling
relationships reveal that these lesbian mothers are content, in a more general
way, with family relationships overall. Analysis of parent-child themes supported

the notion that lesbian mothers are highly committed to parenting and family life.

146

For example, in the interview sample, methods of adding children to the family
included domestic and international adoption, guardianship, heterosexual
marriage and liaison, insemination by known and anonymous donors, and foster
parenting. These data support earlier writing on lesbian family formation that
characterized lesbians as innovative and unconventional in their notions of family
(Kenney & Tash, 1992; Martin, 1993; Weston, 1991). They also support an
understanding of these women as highly committed to their families, since, for
them, getting pregnant, being approved for adoption, ﬁghting for custody and
other obstacles to parenting required substantial investments of time, emotion
and money.

Although respondents reported positive parent-child relationships overall,
concerns about some aspects of these relationships were evident in the data.
Although only one of the women in this study was facing a challenge to child
custody at the time of the interviews, four of the ﬁve families containing children
with identiﬁable fathers reported some anxiety about challenges to maternal
custody. Analyses of legal challenges facing lesbian parents suggest that courts
are less likely than ever to rule against lesbians on the basis of sexual orientation
(Harvard Law Review, 1990; Rivera, 1987), but mothers in this sample continue
to express concern about their tenuous position in the courts. For some families,
use of donor insemination and adoption seemed to bypass the complications of
family dissolution and custody battles. For these families, though, locating

supportive adoption agencies and living within the jurisdiction of courts that allow

147

second-parent adoption seemed to be more a matter of luck and resources than
a reﬂection of changing legal attitudes.

In this study, blended or step parent families reported unique problems
and concerns. Respondents’ comments on integrating new mothers into existing
families and of living with non-positive interactions between parents and children
in lesbian step families support ideas recently introduced by Wright (1998).
Wright identiﬁed three parenting stances that new mothers may assume in
lesbian step families: co-parent, in which the new partner acts as a consultant
and helper for the biological mother; step mother, in which she takes on the
primary mothering role although power in the family remains fundamentally with
the biological mother; and co-mother, in which responsibility and power are
shared equally by the biological mother and her new partner. Families in the
current study who reported non-positive interactions between parents and
children seemed to ﬁt best into the step parent model as deﬁned by Wright.

This study identiﬁed four themes that are not addressed in the literature on
lesbian mother families: desire for more time in parent-child interaction; sibling
rivalry; sibling attachment; and sibling opportunities for growth. These themes
may be most remarkable for their ordinariness. Issues such as children’s
developmentally appropriate demands for time and attention, mothers’ desire for
contact with their children, and sibling’s intense interactions are universal family
phenomena. Lewin (1993) commented that “lesbian mothers, like other mothers,
share in the system of meaning that envelopes motherhood in our culture”

(p.182). Similarly, in this study, family relationships and identity do seem to be

148

impacted by the sexual orientation of the mother(s), but they are not controlled by
it to the extent that family and child development assume entirely unfamiliar
characteristics.

The second major area of analysis in this study centered on relationships
between lesbian mother families and their social environments. Most
respondents reported positive relationships with children’s schools and with
mothers’ work, although the frequency of positive relationships was lower in
these relationships with the social environment than in within-household
relationships. Important stressors were found in household-school and
household-work relationships through analysis of the qualitative data. In general,
results of this study support prior research on interactions between lesbian
mother families and their communities. In addition, the data begin to iterate the
strengths and stressors that characterize the complex relationships experienced
by these families, as well as to clarify factors that impact success and frustration
in lesbian mothers’ interactions with systems outside the family.

Lesbian mothers in this study were particularly attentive to their children’s
school environments, frequently commenting on the importance of tolerance and
respect for differences in the schools. The focus on diversity in the school milieu
suggests that mothers in this sample see their families as part of a larger
spectrum of diverse families that includes racial and ethnic minorities, as well as
lesbian mother families. Drawing parallels between celebrating racial I ethnic
differences and honoring non-traditional family forms is a common-sense

approach to educating school personnel about the issues facing their children. In

149

addition, locating or creating socially liberal environments in which to immerse
themselves is one way that lesbian mothers (and presumably their children) can
experience a decrease in stress (Lott-Whitehead & Tully, 1993).

Respondents were often highly involved in their children’s classrooms as
well as participating in more general school matters. Their level of involvement
parallels earlier research that characterizes lesbian mothers as politically
involved, self-conﬁdent, and willing to assume leadership roles (Green, Mandel,
Hotvedt, Gray & Smith, 1986). Earlier studies have suggested that lesbian
mothers view children’s exposure to non-traditional family forms as leading to the
development of open and tolerant attitudes (Harris & Turner, 1985). These
mothers’ involvement in schools may be seen as purposive behavior aimed at
affecting positive attitudes toward lesbian mother families in their children’s
general school environment. Coming out to teachers, administrators and
children’s peers can be seen as a deliberate act in which lesbian mothers
simultaneously increase their visibility in the school environment in order to
afﬁliate with other marginalized groups, and work to maintain the integrity of their
family by asserting the parenting relationships of both members of a lesbian
couple (Lott-Whitehead 8. Tully, 1993). The politicization of lesbian mothers
(Ainslie & Feltey, 1991) is demonstrated in various important, if subtle, ways as
they strive to ensure positive experiences for their children.

Detailed information on how lesbian mothers manage information about
sexual orientation, family structure and the role of the non-biological lesbian

mother is one of the principal contributions of these interviews. While others

150

have written about the general invisibility of non-biological parents in lesbian
mother families (Hare, 1994; Wright, 1998), these respondents brought an
immediacy to the data not seen in more academic discussions of the issues.
Their stories about trying to ﬁnd the delicate balance between open, assertive
discussion of information relevant to the education system, and socially
inappropriate divulgence of “private business” clarify the profound stress
experienced by these families, even when relationships with the social
environment are amicable.

Neither step mothers’ concerns about displacing biological fathers (eg.
through involvement in their children’s schools) nor children ‘coming out’ as
members of lesbian mother families have been fully addressed in the social
science literature. Unlike the themes related to sibling relationships within
families, these issues are unique aspects of the particular experience of living in
a lesbian mother family and cannot be examined without further research with
lesbian mothers and their children.

Information about the relationships between lesbian mother families and
their children’s schools supports conclusions drawn from data on relationships
within lesbian mother families. That is, respondents’ descriptions of their
interactions with schools illustrate the mothers' commitments to their children and
their partners. In addition, household-school interactions delineate some of the
unique dilemmas experienced by lesbian mothers when they interact with

institutions designed for heterosexual two-parent families.

151

Analysis of the data on relationships between lesbian mother families and
mothers’ work yielded several important themes. The women interviewed for this
study were remarkably open about sexual orientation in their jobs. Most
respondents enjoyed positive interpersonal relationships on the job, although a
few women reported that disclosure of sexual orientation had negative
consequences for them in terms of interpersonal relationships. Research in the
1980’s indicated that the majority of lesbians feared losing their jobs if their
sexual orientation were revealed to their employers (Levine & Leonard, 1984;
Povemy & Finch, 1988). Although overt discrimination does not seem to be a
pﬂmary concern for most, these data suggest that some lesbian mothers
continue to deal with stigma in the workplace.

As might be expected in a sample with this level of commitment to family,
most of the respondents described family work arrangements that allowed at
least one parent to spend substantial time with her child or children.
Entrepreneurship, part time jobs, use of ﬂexible schedules, and choosing to live
on a single income were strategies used by respondents in this study. These
and other approaches to balancing work and family support the notion that
lesbian mothers are creative and adaptable in their relationships with work
(Pagelow, 1980), often placing accessibility to children above beneﬁts, job
security and salary.

The focus on integration of work and family can be seen as more evidence
of lesbian mothers’ commitment to maintaining the integrity of their families (Lott-

Whitehead & Tully, 1993). Comments about the value placed on the inclusion of

152

partners and children in work-related social events support this interpretation, as
do data on the negative impact of the lack of ﬂexibility in workers’ schedules.
Gender socialization doubtless provides a parallel explanation for this ﬁnding.
That is, families with two mothers may be likely to make decisions that favor
interpersonal relationships and children’s needs over ﬁnancial achievement
because women are socialized to value nurturing of partners and children above
all other concerns. More research is needed to clarify this issue, and to examine
the ways in which lesbian mothers make decisions about the work-family balance
at various stages of family and child development.

The issue of health care beneﬁts for partners and children was one area of
the household-work relationship for which respondents were unable to devise
creative solutions. Nearly all the women interviewed accepted lack of access to
health insurance for family members as a fact of modern American life. Although
some respondents mentioned the desire for domestic partner policies as a way to
access beneﬁts, most seemed to consider change in their beneﬁts as an
impossibility.

Overall, the results of this study support previous research on lesbian
mothers and their children, although some of the intricacies of everyday
relationships reported here have not been discussed before. This study’s focus
on relationship type, satisfaction level and detailed description of reactions and
experiences yielded valuable information about the strengths, stressors and

motivations of lesbian mother families.

153

Implications for Policy

Lesbian mother families exist outside of the mainstream of public life in
many important ways. As the literature in Chapter 1 suggests, lack of legitimacy
for lesbian relationships means that partners and children have little protection
when couples separate or when families experience health, ﬁnancial, legal and
other problems. Attention must be given to policies that support these families as
legitimate, contributing, responsible workers, community members and citizens.

Respondents in this study reported on the everyday relationships in their
lives, and their comments were based on their experiences and beliefs rather
than their ambitions. For this reason, perhaps, none of the women interviewed
mentioned same-sex marriage as a potential solution to being denied access to
the privileges of heterosexual marriage. Although legalization of same-sex
marriage could assist some lesbian couples raising children together by
improving access to beneﬁts currently restricted to married heterosexual
partners, respondents universally ignored this as a potential solution to perceived
social needs. For some lesbians, marriage itself, as a heterosexual tradition
steeped in religion and traditional deﬁnitions of gender roles, may be seen as
undesirable. For others, the notion of marriage may seem irrelevant, since these
couples are already living in committed relationships that are generally approved
and acknowledged within their ‘families of choice’ (Weston, 1991). In any case,
the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state legislation restricting marriage to
opposite-sex partners renders same-sex marriage a distant and faint promise

(National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996).

154

A more immediate and attainable solution may lie with changes in policies
that more directly impact access to needed beneﬁts. Work place family beneﬁts
are especially important to lesbian mothers because these women tend to use
non-traditional work arrangements to balance work and family. Thus, one or both
partners in a two-parent family may have difﬁculty accessing health insurance,
disability and retirement plans if they work at jobs that are less than full-time, stay
at home to raise children, or choose to be self-employed. Even in families where
a parent is a full-time worker who enjoys excellent beneﬁts, children may not
have health insurance and other coverage if the worker is not the legal or
biological parent of the children. Commitment to the family is socially desirable,
and policies ought to support workers who take their parenting roles seriously.
Greater availability of domestic partner beneﬁts could create a sort of safety net
for lesbian mother families by ensuring that access to work place beneﬁts does
not come at the price of decreased availability for children’s needs.

Women who are responsible for supporting their children ought to be
identiﬁed as mothers for the purposes of work place and other social beneﬁts.
Access to second-parent adoption can provide substantial protection for children
and parents in some lesbian mother families. (Second-parent adoption is not
generally considered applicable to families in which two biological or legal
parents already exist.) In this study, most respondents who had access to
second-parent adoption used it. In addition, some families who lived outside the
single county in the state where second-parent adoption is available also

pursued the legal procedure, although none were successful. Like domestic

155

partner beneﬁts, women in this study seemed to see second-parent adoption as
more realistic and more desirable than the option of same-sex marriage.
Second-parent adoption is already a reality in Michigan, and many of the mothers
interviewed in this study know someone (or know o_f someone) who has been
through the process. In addition, second-parent adoption focuses on the needs
of the children, rather than on the partner relationship, so may better reﬂect the
goals of these women while avoiding the religious and social implications of
marriage.

Besides beneﬁts discrimination, lesbian mother families reported that their
families ‘become invisible’ in the community because organizations continue to
ignore diversity of family type. In the schools, evidence of this problem is
abundant, including school records that identify parents as ‘mother and father’,
teachers and administrators who ignore or question the role of non-biological
parents even when the parents have explained the family, and tolerance of
teasing, name-calling and other harassment related to sexual orientation in the
classroom and on the playgrounds. Implicit in some of the complaints about
household-school relationships was the idea that public institutions like the
schools exclude non-biological parents via policies and practices that focus on

the legal rather than the actual parental relationships within the family. Policies

 

that support the inclusion of all responsible adults make better sense for the
already-beleaguered school system. In order for this remedy to work, of course,
information about meaningful steps toward inclusion must be available to all

school personnel. Resources for opening a dialogue about lesbian and gay

156

parents and the schools have been developed and could be used to educate
school communities about the issues facing lesbian mother families (Educational
Advocacy Committee of Family Pride Coalition, 1998).

Federal and state protections for lesbians and gay men, and smaller-scale
policy changes for domestic partner beneﬁts and second-parent adoption have
long been the arena of gay and lesbian activists. Social workers and others who
are mandated to work for social justice must join the struggle to achieve equity
for lesbian mother families. To do otherwise is to ignore a fundamental civil
rights issue and social work opportunity of our era.

Implications for Practice

The sample of lesbian mother families interviewed for this research had
remarkably few problems that might merit the intervention of a clinical social
worker, psychologist or physician. By virtue of their need for services, lesbian
mother families in clinical populations are likely to exhibit a variety of problems
not mentioned here, and many may need intensive intervention. This study did
not aim to search out potential pathologies in lesbian mother families.
Nevertheless, the results of this research suggest principles of intervention that
are particularly salient with lesbian mothers and their children.

Before working with lesbian mothers, practitioners will beneﬁt from
increasing their understanding of the values, beliefs and behaviors that guide the
mothers’ interactions within the household and in the community. The sample of
lesbians studied here, for example, displayed a remarkable commitment to their

roles as mothers, even at the expense of ﬁnancial prosperity or time for intimacy

157

with partners. In addition, interdependence was the rule in these families, as is

seen particularly in the data on family work arrangements. Finally,

communication was highly valued in interpersonal relationships, as was active

participation in the lives of children.

Of course, just as the women interviewed here expressed these themes in

different ways, clients will vary in their presentation of issues that have most

meaning for them. A thorough and directed assessment is likely to be very

useful with lesbian mother families. Important areas to consider include:

Family history and family type, including methods and timing of adding
children to the family.

Roles of the biological mother and non-biological mother (if any) in the
household and in the community.

Levels of interaction and roles of other parents, including children’s
fathers and mothers’ former female partners.

Couples’ concerns about lack of intimacy or sexual contact and the
effects of such concerns on family relationships.

Family work arrangements and related concerns, such as parental
availability for children and lack of access to work place beneﬁts.
Mothers’ perceptions of community attitudes, such as tolerance for
racial I ethnic diversity.

Visibility of other lesbian mother families in the community.

Methods of managing disclosure of mothers’ sexual orientation,

including children’s level of openness.

158

. Connection to social supports, including other lesbian mother families.

Once assessment is completed, planning for intervention should include
consideration of clients’ characteristic methods of approaching solution
development. This study, for example, showed strong support for the notion that
lesbian mothers use creative and ﬂexible approaches to problem solving.
Examination of the methods by which mothers’ created their families or of the
ways in which they manage disclosure about sexual orientation in children’s’
schools may provide a template for further problem solving. Although this
process sounds simple, it may be quite difﬁcult for some practitioners. While
none of the mothers in this study could be characterized as highly deviant,
practitioners who value safety and conformity might experience solutions
developed in this way as non-traditional, unexpected, or even risky.

The results of this study clearly highlight intersections between individuals
in lesbian mother families and institutions in the community as areas of particular
strain. Understanding the meanings that members of families ascribe to
instances of subtle bias or miscommunication is essential to effective
intervention. Because much of the pressure experienced in household-
community relationships amounts to institutionalized heterosexism, conscientious
practitioners may need to act as advocates for their clients. For example, a
practitioner might use the lesbian mothers’ own analogy of respect for race I
ethnicity to help school personnel better understand the value of including

lesbian mother families in the school community.

159

In addition to advocacy, practice methods that empower lesbian mothers
to develop their own systems of support and intervention should be considered.
For example, a support group for lesbian parents of school-aged children would
minimize the need for each family to discover the most effective ways of dealing
with a local school district. Mothers who share common experiences or whose
children attend the same schools could share information about compassionate
teachers, methods of communicating with administrators, and effective modes of
redressing grievances. A coalition of concerned lesbian mothers may be a
formidable force in the community. Participation in support groups is also a way
for lesbian mothers and children to meet and develop friendships, thereby
increasing overall social support.

In addition to comprehensive and focused assessment, advocacy, and
strategies for empowerment, practitioners need to increase awareness of
community resources for lesbian mothers. In urban centers and liberal suburban
communities these resources may include gay and lesbian centers and existing
lesbian mother support groups, but since many lesbian mother families live
outside of these areas, other sources of support should be considered as well.
Welcoming religious communities, feminist women’s organizations, Internet
groups and lesbian publications can all be effective referrals for ongoing support,
although each must be researched by the practitioner before being

recommended.

160

anplications for Research

Qualitative research methods can be especially effective in increasing
knowledge about the relationships experienced by lesbian mother families.
Respondents in this study supported and clariﬁed existing knowledge as well as
indicating areas needing further exploration. Additional studies of lesbian
mothers that use interviews and other qualitative techniques are needed, of
course. Because the interviews conducted in this study provided so much detail,
further analysis of the existing data may well provide additional insight into the
experiences of lesbian mothers, as well.

Sample characteristics, sample size and methodology limited this study.
Although additional efforts to recruit lesbians of color, low-income lesbians, single
lesbian mothers, and others underrepresented in the current sample would be
difﬁcult, expensive and time-consuming, the results will be well worth the effort.
Without the participation of such a diverse sample, important stories will not be
told, themes will not be described, and improved services may not be offered.
Another way to increase diversity in the data is to interview more of the existing
sample. Since the variance m this relatively homogenous sample was large,
additional participants will have important and unique perspectives to report,
resulting in more complete coverage of existing themes and addition of new
topics for analysis. Finally, although it was an excellent tool for deep exploration
of the experiences of this sample, the interview methodology limited analysis of

the data, since no comparisons or generalizations could be made. Limited use of

161

quantitative measurement may help to supplement continued use of the
qualitative methodology.

This study has raised a considerable number of questions for further
research. Some of the questions could be addressed by further analysis of the
existing data. Others will require collection of additional data. An abbreviated list
of these questions follows:

. What are the implications of mothering I being mothered in a cross-

racial lesbian mother family?

. How do lesbian mothers retain their attitudes of resilience in the face
of explicit and subtle threats to family coherence?

o How does the involvement of a third or fourth parent (e.g. father or
mother’s former female partner) impact the existing balance of roles in
lesbian mother families?

. How does the completion of a second-parent adoption change
relationships within lesbian mother families and between families and
their social environments?

. How do families with different pathways to parenthood differ in terms
of intra-family and household-environment relationships?

0 What are the strengths and stressors of later-life parenting (a sub-
group that was well represented in the interview sample)?

. How do children characterize relationship types and satisfaction levels

within the family and between the family and the social environment?

162

Complete understanding of this research project and its implications is not
possible without consideration of the experience of the research process itself.
The foundation of this study was the relationships that developed between the
interviewers and the participants. Although most lasted only a few hours, these
interactions provided the context in which all subsequent data analysis occurred.
Participants in this study were remarkably articulate, honest, patient and
thoughtful. These characteristics came through in the data, as did their
eagerness to contribute to a process that they perceived as beneﬁcial to their
families. In many cases, interview respondents invited the researchers into their
homes, offered refreshments, gave a tour of the house and asked friendly
questions about the researchers family. The tone of nearly all interviews
paralleled that of a friendly conversation.

Interaction with interview respondents on this level provided interesting
detail that might not othenrvise be apparent in the data. For example, although
many of the interviewees reported incomes that placed them well into the middle
class, large variances in indicators of social class pmer than income were
evident. Respondents who reported annual family incomes over $75,000, for
example, lived in housing that ranged from a double wide trailer to an historic
home in an elegant urban district.

ln-home and face-to-face interaction with the interviewees also helped to
support the themes evident in the interviews. Observing interactions between
mothers and children in their homes and seeing refrigerator doors covered with

children’s art work and school papers strongly reinforced themes related to

163

mothers’ commitment to family and to reports of positive interactions between
mothers and children. Seeing the resourcefulness and creativity these women
used in remodeling and decorating their homes without outside help gave
credence to the idea that they are creative and ﬂexible in other aspects of their
lives. Noticing that their neighborhoods were often racially integrated helped
make their statements about valuing diversity ring true.

The status of the interviewers as lesbians and as mothers had particular
importance for the research outcomes described here. From our positions as
‘insiders’ in the lesbian community, we brought signiﬁcant knowledge of the
participants’ cultures and experiences to the interviews. Our status as ‘insiders’
likely increased our rapport with most participants, especially those who asked
directly about our experiences and engaged us in discussions of our own
families. In addition, our ‘insider’ perspective generally streamlined the research
process by allowing for interviews to proceed without interruption when
participants referred to individuals, institutions and events related to the lesbian
community or to the common events of parenting. Finally, because each of the
interviewers had a personal stake in the research, our ‘insider’ status also likely
increased our attentiveness and energy in the interviews, since the project itself
had important implications for our own families.

At the same time, identiﬁcation with the respondents may have posed
some problems for the project, particularly where similarities between
interviewers and participants were overestimated by either of the parties. Such

errors are most likely to have occurred wherever interviewer I participant rapport

164

was strongly based on identiﬁcation as lesbians and mothers, rather than on
more generic interpersonal connections. In such cases, assumptions about
shared knowledge and experiences may have been made in error. For example,
when mothers spoke of negative reactions from school personnel, extended
family, or ministers, we may have failed to probe for details of those experiences
when we believed that we already had adequate understanding of the nature of
those common events. Similarly, participants may have failed to provide details
about such experiences whenever they perceived that the interviewers
understood or had experienced similar events. Thus, while common experiences
streamlined conversations with participants, it is not possible to know how such
‘efﬁciency’ impacted the reliability and richness of the data.

While we shared some common experiences with the lesbian mothers we
interviewed, there were important differences between interviewers and
respondents, and between the two interviewers, that may have impacted the
study. Both interviewers are white women with extensive university educations,
stable, long-term relationships, good health, and above-average incomes. Such
characteristics were also shared with some, but not all, participants, and may
have resulted in differences among the interviews with women of color, single or
recently-partnered lesbians, those with limited education, and those with
numerous other traits not shared by the interviewers.

While identiﬁcation as ‘insiders’ based on sexual orientation and parenting
role was fundamental to the success of the interviews, other interviewer

characteristics had signiﬁcant impact. For example, both interviewers found that

165

shared knowledge about resources for lesbian mothers was related to
geographic location of the interviewer’s and respondent’s place of residence,
thus geographic location was an important variable in building rapport,
streamlining the interview, and interpreting results. Similarly, age of children,
number of children, method of family formation, religious afﬁliation, and friends-
in-common were all found to be relevant to the interview process.

Conclusion

This study, although limited in many ways, examined several important
aspects of life in lesbian mother families and yielded data that both supports
existing research and contributes new knowledge to the growing collection of
studies on lesbian mothers. Suggestions for improved practice, strategies for
policy makers and reﬂections on the research process have been included in the
hope that this project will have positive real-life implications for the women who
volunteered to participate in the study. A substantial list of unanswered
questions for additional study is provided, also in the hope that further deﬁning
the questions will lead to increased attention to this population on the parts of
academics and practitioners.

The results of this study should lead to further consideration of the
particular strengths and coping strategies evident in members of non-traditional
families. Continued evaluation of such families is needed so that social scientists
can better understand the ways in which marginalized communities are able to
be successful. Without such understanding, further research and attempted

intervention may grow increasingly irrelevant.

166

APPENDICES

167

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
APPLICATION AND APPROVAL

168

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/353-2976

The Michigan Sate University
IDEA is institutional DiverSity'
Excellence in Action

MSU is an ammunve-action.
corral-opportunity institution

MICHIGAN STATE
U N | V E R S I T Y
November 20, I998

 

TO; Dr. Rena Harold

254 Baker Hall

APPROVAL DATE: November 19, 1998
RE: IRB # 98776 CATEGORY: l-C

TITLE: LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF
PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL AND INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects
appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWAls: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.

A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation ofthe change. Ifthis is done at the time ofrenewal, please use the green renewal form

To revise an approvedprotocolatanyothertimedmingtheyear,sendyomwrittenrequecttothe
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include

in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to

the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

Ifwe can be offurther assistance, please contactus at 517 355-2180 orvia email:

 

UCRIHS@pilotmsuedu Please note that all UCRIHS forms and instruction are located
via the web: http://wwwmsuedu/imit/vprgs/UCRIHS/
Sincerely,
(/ -
David E. Wright, Ph. D.
UCRIHS Chair
DEW: plw

CCI Lucy Mercier

169

Lesbian Mother Study
Survey Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a study of lesbian mothers. We are
interested in ﬁnding out more about lesbian mother families, especially about
relationships within households, interactions with the community, and use of
resources. If you would like to participate in this research, please read the
following information carefully before beginning the survey.

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any
question on the survey and may stop participating at any time.

This survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

This survey is anonymous. Information taken from your completed survey will
be reported in a way that does not reveal your identity.

If you would like information about the results of this study once it is
completed, you may contact:

Lucy Mercier

Michigan State University
School of Social Work
254 BakerHall

E. Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 353-8621

lucv.mercier@ssc.msu.edu

 

 

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by
completing and returning the attached survey.

 

Remove this page from the questionnaire. You may want to keep this
information in case you want to contact the researcher about the study.

170

Lesbian Mother Study
Interview Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a study of lesbian mothers. We are
interested in ﬁnding out more about lesbian mother families, especially about
relationships within households, interactions with the community, and use of
resources. If you would like to participate in this research, read the following
information and indicate your understanding by signing at the bottom of this

page.

. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any
question during the interview and you may stop participating at any time.

. The interview will take approximately 90 minutes to complete.

. lnforrnation you give during the interview will be kept conﬁdential. When we
report the results of this study, your name will not be used. Any other
information that could be used to identify you will be changed or removed.

. Your interview will be recorded on audio tape. Only the researchers will have
access to the tapes.

. If you would like information about the results of this study once it is
completed, you may contact: You should keep a copy of this consent form in
case you have questions in the future.

ﬁc'wﬂg‘f't u . .t UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
IC igan a e DIVBI'SI y - XPIREs.
School of Social Work TH'S proiect E

254 Baker Hall

E. Lansing, MI 48824 NOV 2 0 1999 '
(517) 3533-8521 swageuewupggﬂuesnou
Iuc .mercre sc.msu.edu ABOVEMONDATE'HTO NUE

 

- I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

. l consent to have my interview audio taped.

 

 

 

 

Signature

171

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
INITIAL REVIEW (and 5 yr. renewal)
UCRIHS
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair
246 Administration Building Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
PHONE (517) 355-2180 FAX (517)432-1171 E-Mail - UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/unit/vprgs/ucrihs/
Ofﬁce Hours: M-F (8:00 A.M.-Noon 8. 1:00-5:00 PM.)

 

DIRECTIONS: Please complete questions on this application using the instructions and
deﬁnitions found on the attached sheets. (revised 8/97)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Responsible Project Investigator Additional lnvestigator(s)
(Faculty or staff supervisor)

Name: Rena Harold Name: Lucy Mercier

Social Security #: 384-54-5851 SS or Stu. ID#: 546-323-5133
Department: Social Work Name:

I believe the research can be safely completed $8 or Stu. ID#:

 

without endangering human subjects. Further, I
have read the enclosed proposal and I am willing to Name:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supervise any student investigators. SS or Stu. ID#:
2. Address Address

School of Social Work School of Social Work

254 Beker Haj 254 Baker Hall

E. LansingI MI 48824

E. Lansing, MI 48824

Phone #: (517) 432-3733 Phone #: (517) 353-8621
Fax #: (517) 353-3038 Fax #2 (517] 353-3038
E-mail: haroldr@pilot.msu.edu E-mail: Iuc¥.mercie;@ssc.msu.edu

 

3. Title of Project LESBIAN MOTHER FAMILIES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY QF
PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL AND lNTERPERSONAL SUPPORT

 

 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Subcommittee Agenda

 

172

4. Have you ever received Preliminary Approval for this project? No [XX] Yes [ ]
If yes, what IRB # was assigned to it?

 

 

5. Funding (if any)
MSU Contracts and Grants app. # if applicable
6. Does this project utilize an Investigational Drug, Device or Procedure?

No [XX] Yes [] Ifyes, is there an IND#? No [] Yes [ ] IND#

 

7. Does this project involve the use of Materials of Human Origin (e.g., human blood or
tissue)?
No [XX] Yes [ ]

8. When would you prefer to begin data collection?
pacemper 1998
Please remember you may not begin data collection without UCRIHS approval.

9. Category (Circle A, B or C below. See instructions pp. 5 8 6)

a. This proposal is submitted as EXEMPT from full review.
Specify category or categories. 1-C

b. This proposal is submitted for EXPEDITED review.
Specify category or categories.

0. This proposal is submitted for FULL sub-committee review.

10. Is this a full review multi-site project? No [ )oq Yes [ ]
If yes, do the other sites have a Multiple Project Assurance IRB that will also review this
project?
[ ] No. Please contact the UCRIHS ofﬁce for further information about meeting the
PHSINIHIOPPR regulations.
[ ] Yes. Please supply a copy of that approval letter when obtained.

11. Project Description (Abstract): Please limit your response to 200 words.

In the past 30 years, research about lesbian mothers has shifted from a focus on deviance
and pathology to the study of unique structures and strengths. Studies have highlighted
potential individual, Interpersonal, institutional and socio-cultural obstacles for lesbian
mothers, although little is known about the ways in which lesbian mothers frame their
interactions with their families and communities in light of their unique circumstances.
This study will focus on lesbian mothers’ perceptions of relationships within and around
their families. Lesbian mothers will be asked to participate in this study by completing a
survey, participating in an interview, or both. Each individual completing a survey of
demographic data will be given the opportunity to volunteer for a face-to-face interview by
indicating her interest on the returned survey. Respondents In the interview sub-sample
will be asked to describe their Interactions within their families and between their families
and social structures in their environments. In addition, respondents will be asked to
describe their responses to these interactions in order to access Information about the
impact of both supports and barriers in their everyday lives.

173

12. Procedures: Please describe all project activities to be used in collecting data from
human subjects. This also includes procedures for collecting materials of human origin
and analysis of existing data originally collected from human subjects.

The project consists of two phases of data collection: a survey of respondent
demographics and intensive face-to-face interviews.

Survey instrument. The survey instrument initially distributed to respondents will ask for
demographic data about the individual respondent and her family. In addition,
respondents will be asked about their sexual orientation (on a continuum from exclusively
heterosexual to exclusively homosexual), level of openness regarding sexual orientation,
pathway to parenthood for each child, and arrangements for childcare. A copy of the
questionnaire is attached.

Interview protocol. A sub-sample of volunteers from the pool of survey respondents will
be selected for face-to-face interviews. The researcher will contact and schedule an
appointment with each selected respondent. The interviews will take place in the
respondents’ homes, at the university or in other locations by mutual agreement of the
researcher and respondent. All interviews will be recorded on audio tape. The intervlews
will be semi-structured and will focus on the completion of a family I support system eco-
map for each respondent (see Figure). A list of interview questions and probes will be
developed from the literature and from the survey responses. An outline of Interview
topics is attached. Because of the qualitative nature of the study, this protocol will guide
the Interviews but other topics and issues may be addressed as they arise. In addition,
the researchers expect to reﬁne the interview questions and probes throughout the
process of interviewing, as responses from the study’s subjects shape the focus of the
study.

13. Subject Population: Describe your subject population. (e.g., high school athletes, women
over 50 wlbreast cancer, small business owners )

Lesbian mothers. The sub-sample of interview subjects will consist of lesbians with
children aged 0-18 years residing in respondent’s home at least half time. No minors will
be interviewed.

a. The study population may include (check each category where subjects may be included
by design or incidentally):

Minors

Pregnant Women

Women of Childbearing Age

Institutionalized Persons

Students

Low Income Persons

Minorities

Incompetent Persons (or those
with diminished capacity) [ ]

233233:

b. Number of subjects (including controls) approximater 100
c. How will the subjects be recruited? (Attach appropriate number of copies of

recruiting advertisement, if any. See p. 13 of UCRIHS instructions)
A combination of word-of-mouth I snowball sampling, advertisement in lesbian support

organizations and other meeting places, and direct distribution of surveys. A sample
advertisement is attached.

174

d. If you are associated with the subjects (e.g., they are your students, employees,
patients), please explain the nature of the association.

NIA

e. If someone will receive payment for recruiting the subjects please explain the
amount of payment, who pays it and who receives it.

NIA

f. Will the research subjects be compensated? [X] No [] Yes. If yes, details
concerning payment, including the amount and schedule of payments, must be
explained in the informed consent.

9. Will the subjects incur additional ﬁnancial costs as a result of their participation in
this study? [X] No [ ] Yes. If yes, please include an explanation in the
informed consent.

h. Will this research be conducted with subjects who reside in another country or
live in a cultural context different from mainstream US society? [X] No [] Yes.

(1) If yes, will there be any corresponding complieations in your ability to
minimize risks to subjects, maintain their conﬁdentiality and/or assure
their right to voluntary informed consent as individuals? [X] No [ ]Yes.

(2) If your answer to h-1 Is yes, what are these complications and how will
you resolve them?

NIA

14. How will the subjects’ privacy be protected? (See Instructions p. 8.)

All survey responses will be anonymous and demographic data will be reported in
aggregate form.

Contact information for those volunteering to participate in the interview portion of the
study will be separated from the surveys immediately upon receipt. Interview participants
will be assigned identiﬁcation numbers and pseudonyms. No one except the Interviewer
will have access to the full identities of the interview participants. Individuals hired to
transcribe the audio tapes will be trained in procedures to protect confidentiality and will
be required to sign an agreement to ensure conﬁdentiality. Transcripts of the interview
audio tapes will have names and other identiﬁers deleted. Data containing participant
identiﬁers will be kept in a locked location.

In the projects’ ﬁnal report, qualitative data will be presented in the form of direct quotes

or paraphrases , but participant's conﬁdentiality will be protected through use of
pseudonyms and alteration of identifying details.

175

 

15. Risks and Beneﬁts for subjects: (See Instructions p. 8.)

Due to anti-lesbian attitudes in mainstream U.S. society, there does exist some risk to
study respondents 11 their identity is revealed. The seriousness of the risk would vary
considerably with participant identity, social and economic status, geographic location,
and other factors. Potential risks might be social (e. g. rejection by peers), psychological
(e. g. shame), or economic (e. 9. loss of employment).

Survey respondents incur very minimal or no risk due to the anonymity of the survey
method. Interviewees may face greater risk, although we expect the risk to be extremer
slight due to measures made to protect conﬁdentiality.

Potential beneﬁts Include increased social awareness of conditions for lesbian mothers,
increased understanding of service needs (and possible resulting increase on actual
services), and increased knowledge of unique aspects of lesbian mother families.

16. Consent Procedures (See Instructions pp. 9-13.)

All respondents will be asked to read and sign a written statement of informed consent,
which will Include:
- An explanation of the purpose of the research
. An estimate of the time needed to complete the survey and I or Interview
0 An explanation of the voluntary nature of the research and information about
discontinuing participation without penalty
An explanation of procedures to ensure conﬁdentiality
The name, address and phone number of the researchers
For interview participants, an explicit statement that the Interviews will be audio taped
and an explanation of procedures for ensuring conﬁdentiality of the taped material

This project does not include any experimental procedures, treatments, deception, risk of
physical injury, placebo, or economic costs to subjects. No minors will be interviewed.

Written consent will be required for both survey and Interview participation. See attached.

 

‘ CHECKLIST: Check off that you have included each of these items. If not applicable, state NIA:
[XX ] Completed application

[t’] The correct number of copies of the application and instruments, according
to the category of review (See instructions p. 13.)

[v] Consent form (or script for verbal consent), if applicable
[ff Advertisement, if applicable

[ ] One complete copy of the methods chapter of the research proposal

 

 

176_

 

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE COVER LETTER

177

January 22, 1999
Dear Potential Research Participant,

I am sending you this letter in hope that you or someone you know will be able to
help me with a research project. I am a Ph.D. student in the School of Social
Work at Michigan State University. I am also a lesbian mom.

I am seeking women who are willing to participate in a study for my doctoral
dissertation, which involves surveying (and later interviewing) lesbian mothers in
Michigan. I am particularly interested in ﬁnding out about the types of
experiences lesbian moms have with people, agencies and institutions, such as
schools, religious organizations, extended families, employers and others. There
is a real need for information about our families to be included in the training of
human service professionals.

This research will directly beneﬁt lesbian mothers in our area. As part of my
project, I will be sharing the information that I gather with a variety of people.
Your responses may help to change the way that social services, health care,
education and other interactions are presented to lesbian mother families.

I am asking many people to help me ﬁnd women to participate because it has
been so difﬁcult to recruit women who are willing to participate in such studies.
Will you distribute the enclosed questionnaires to any one you know who might
be willing to contribute to the project?

Any lesbian who is involved in parenting is eligible to participate in the project.
The survey questionnaire takes most people about ﬁfteen minutes to complete.
If you volunteer for the interview portion of the project, just indicate so on the
form and I will contact you. I have enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelopes
for you to return the questionnaires directly to me.

Thank for considering this project. Let me know if you have any questions or
want more questionnaires. I can be reached at (517) 353-8621 or by e-mail at

Iucy.mercier@§sc.msu.edu.

Lucy Mercier

178

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE

179

Lesbian Mothers Needed for Research Project

Lesbian mothers are currently needed for a research project exploring
relationships within lesbian mother households and between lesbian mother
families and their communities. Participants are needed to complete surveys and
participate in face-to-face interviews. Any lesbian or bisexual woman involved in

parenting is eligible to participate.

For more information contact:

Lucy Mercier

Michigan State University
School of Social Work

254 Baker Hall

E. Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 353-8621
Iucy.mercier@ssc.msu.edu

180

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE

181

Lesbian Mother Survey

Please answer these questions by following the directions for each section. In
general, we are interested in the answer that be_stdescribes you and I or your
family. We are trying to survey a diverse group of women, so if any of the
questions do not apply to you, write NIA or your comments in that section. For
any of the questions about your children. include any child that you consider to
be part of your family.

Surveys often fall short of representing the complexity of real life. We have tried
to provide space on the questionnaire for your remarks or other details we have
not covered. Feel free to write in these spaces (or anywhere else on the survey).

 

1) Number of children:
indicate Iggy many children (of any age) ﬁt the following categories.

Live with me full-time

Live with me at least half-time
Live with me less than half-time
Do not live with me

 

 

 

 

 

 

2a) Relationship status
Indicate the category that best ﬁts your current status.

Single

Partnered, with a woman, living separately
Partnered, with a woman, living together
Other (please explain)

 

 

 

2b) If partnered, how long have you been together? years

 

 

182

 

 

3a) Sexual Orientau'on
Circle the number that best describes your current sexual orientation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Exclusively Bisexual Exclusively
Heterosexual Lesbian
3b) Do you consider yourself transgendered? Yes No

 

3c) Place a mark next to each person who knows that you are lesbian or bisexual. if
the category represents a group, make a mark if you are out to anyone in that group.
Write NIA on the line if the category does not apply to you

_ My mother _ My father _ Therapists. case workers
_ My brothers _ My sisters or other social service
_ My children _ Other relatives providers

_ My children’s father _ My children's _ Judges, attorneys,

_ My friends friends other court personnel
_ My employer _ My children's _ My rabbi, minister or other .
_ My co-workers friends' religious leader

_ Medical providers parents _ My neighbors

_ Other (explain)

 

No one knows that I am lesbian / bisexual.

3d) Look at the list above and consider only those who know you are lesbian l bisexual.
. Draw a circle around the person I people above who are most supportive of
you in terms of your sexual orientation?

Draw a square around the person 1 people above who are least supportive
in terms of your sexual orientation?

 

 

3e) Place a mark next to each sentence that is true for you.

_ My children see me being affectionate (hugging I kissing) with my partner.
_ I have discussed my sexual orientation with my children.

__ Others have discussed my sexual orientation with my children.

3f) If your children know that you are lesbian I bisexual, please circle the number that
best reﬂects their reaction.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very upset Neutral . Very accepting
Rejecting No response Supportive

 

 

 

183

 

Lda~inw£

4) Description of Children. Starting with your oldest child. describe each of your
children in the table below. Use the following keys to help you ﬁll in the table. Do not
write the names of your children. If you need more space, use extra paper.

Sex: Race I Ethnicity Family Status:
1=female (as you perceive it): This child joined the family
2=male 1=Asian IAsian American 1 =at the same time as my
2=African American I Black current partner
Age: 3=Hispanic I Chicano 2=before my current partner
_ years 4=Native American =after my current partner
5=Caucasian I White 4=NIA, I don’t have a
6=Biracial (describe) partner
=other (describe)

Grade: grade in which child is currently enrolled at school (Preschool -college)

Pathway to Parenthood:

1=Your birth child by heterosexual liaison/marriage

2=Your birth child by donor insemination I known donor

3=Your birth child by donor insemination I anonymous donor

4=Your partner’s birth child by heterosexual liaison/marriage

5=Your partner‘s birth child by donor insemination I known donor

6=Your partner’s birth child by donor insemination I anonymous donor

7=Adopted child

8=Foster child 10=Guardianship, informal (describe)
=Guardianship, legal 1 1 =Other (describe)

Sample: Jill is an 18-month old gin. My partner and I adopted her from China after we

lived together for several years.
(See Sample Child in the chart below to see how to use keys to record child information.)

 

Grade in Race I Family Pathway to
Sex A e School Ethnicity Status Parenthood

 

Sample 1 1 .5 NIA 1 3 7
Child

 

Child A

 

Child 8

 

Child C

 

 

ChiiTo

 

Child E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184

As you did on the previous page, use the following keys to complete the table below.
Again, start with your oldest child, but do not write the names of your children.
YOU MAY CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER FOR THE lTEMS ON THIS PAGE.

Living Arrangement: Custody Decisions:
1=in your home full time Custody for this child decided by
2=half time with you / half with father 1=you
3=in father‘s home full time =your partner

=in own home, apt., dorm 3= child's father
5=in group home. foster care, etc 4=judgelcourt ofﬁcial
6=other (explain) 5=child

=other (describe)

Childcare Provider: 7=NIA
1=None / doesn't need supervision
2=Members of my household Satisfaction with Childcare:
3=Relatives not living in my household 1=not at all satisﬁed
4=lndividual day care in sitter’s home 2=slightly satisﬁed
5=School based day care I latch key =moderately satisﬁed
6=Group day care I preschool 4=wel| satisﬁed
7=Sitter I nanny in my home 5=extremely satisﬁed
8=Employment based day care 6=NIA, does not use childcare

9=Other (explain)

Responsibility for Childcare:
Who is primarily responsible for making childcare arrangements for this child?

 

 

 

 

 

1=you 4=child's father

2=your partner 5=other (describe)

3=both you and your partner 6=NIA, does not use childcare
Living Custody Child Care Childcare Responsibility
Anamement Decisions Provider Satisfaction for Childcare

Child A

Child B

Child C

Child O

Child E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

 

The following questions will help to provide a proﬁle of the women who have responded
to this survey. Please write your answer in the space provided, or place a mark next to
the category that best describes you. If applicable, please provide information about your
partner as well.

5) The zip code of your primary residence:
(We will use this information to ﬁnd the approximate population statistics for your community.)

 

 

 

6a) Your age: years 6b) Partner's age: years

7a) Your race I ethnicity: 7b) Your partner's race I ethnicity:

_ Asian I Asian American _ Asian I Asian American

_ African American I Black _ African American I Black

_ Hispanic I Chicana _ Hispanic I Chicana

_ Native American _ Native American

_ Caucasian I White _ Caucasian I White

_ Biracial I multi ethnic (describe) _ Biracial I multi ethnic (describe)

_ Other (describe) __ Other (describe)

8a) Annual household income:

_ under $12,000 8b) Total number of adults and

_ $12,000 — $20,000 children in household:

_ $20,001 - $30,000

_ $30,001 - $40,000 8c) Number of persons

_ $40,001 - $50,000 contributing to household

_ $50,001 - $75,000 income:

_ over $75,000

8d) Does your family receive child support? __ Yes _ No
public assistance (welfare)? _ Yes _ No

9a) Your education: 9b) Partner's education:

_ less than high school grad _ less than high school grad

_ high school graduate I GED _ high school graduate I GED

_ technical I other training _ technical 1 other training

_ some college _ some college

_ Bachelors' degree _ Bachelors' degree

_ Master’s degree _ Master‘s degree

_PhDIMDIDO _PhDIMDIDO

 

 

L.___¥

 

186

 

10a) Your occupation I employment
_ Unemployed I looking for work

_ Stay at home mother I homemaker
Part-time employee

F ull-time employee

__ Student

10b) What is your primary occupation?
(if you are currently not employed, please indicate your last position. If you are a
student, indicate your ﬁeld of study.)

10c) Your partner's occupation I employment
Unemployed I looking for work

Stay at home mother / homemaker
Part-time employee

Full-time employee

_ Student

10d) What is your partner's primary occupation?

1 1a) Your religious afﬁliation 11b) Your partner's afﬁliation

_ None _ None

_ Catholic _ Catholic

_ Jewish _ Jewish

_ Muslim _ Muslim

_ Hindu _ Hindu

_ Buddhist _ Buddhist

_ Pagan I Viﬁcca _ Pagan IWicca

_ Protestant (specify) _ Protestant (specify)
_ Other (please specify) _ Other (please specify)

 

 

1 1c) Use this key to respond to the following set of questions.

1=never 4=once or twice a month
2=once or twice a year 5=about once per week
3=less than once per month 6=more than once per week

1 1d) How often do you participate in religious activities?
1 1e) How often does your partner participate in religious activities?
1 1f) How often do your children participate in religious activities?

 

 

 

 

187

Another Opportunity to Participate

In addition to the survey that you just completed, we will be collecting information
about lesbian mothers through interviews with women about their family
relationships and about their experiences with people and institutions in their
communities. These interviews will take about 90 minutes to complete and can be
arranged to take place in or near your home. Would you be willing to be
contacted to participate in a face-to-face interview about your experiences
as a lesbian mother?

Often, the voices of lesbians are forgotten or ignored by mainstream social
researchers. This research represents a real chance for our relationships and
experiences to be documented and described in our own words. If you want to
participate in the interview phase of this research, please complete the form
below and return it with your survey. If you are selected for an interview, a
researcher will contact you in the next few weeks.

Thank you!

I want to volunteer to be interviewed for the lesbian mother research project.

 

NAME

 

ADDRESS

 

CITY, STATE, ZIP

 

FPHONE

 

_EiMAlL

 

BEST TIME TO REACH ME

 

 

 

Please return completed surveys to: Lucy Mercier
Michigan State University
School of Social Work
254 Baker Hall
E. Lansing, MI 48824
Iucy.mercier@ssc.msu.edu

188

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

189

ID#

 

DATE

 

INTERVIEWER

 

LESBIAN MOTHER STUDY
INTERVIEW RECORD

GREET PARTICIPANT

EXPLAIN CONSENT FORM AND OBTAIN SIGNATURE I BEGIN TAPING
INTRODUCE ROLE I DIVISION OF LABOR ITEMS

Most people identify themselves by naming one or more roles that they perform
in their everyday lives. For example, you are participating in this study because
you identiﬁed yourself as a parent. What roles do my have?

Mark each role mentioned by participant:

Mother I parent

Step-mother I step-parent

Partner I lover I wife I spouse

Fﬁend

Employee l worker I wage earner

Student

Volunteer (doing what?)

Other (what?)

190

Parenting Role

When respondent mentions her parenting role, ask her:

What name do you use to refer to your parenting role?

What name does your partner use to refer to her role with he kids?

What name do your children use to refer to you?

What name do they use for your partner?

What names do you prefer?

How did you decide on names?

191

Worker Role

Amount of time spent at work?

Comments I Reactions?

Primary Roi;

What would you say your primary role is?

Why is this your primary role?

192

Dealing with various roles
What strategies do you use to keep up with your responsibilities?

Have you made compromises? What are they?

193

Division of Household Labor
Use the table to indicate the percentage of total labor supplied by each member
of the household for the following tasks. When tasks are done by people outside

the household (maid, gardener, etc), note that.

For each item, ask the participant to choose a number from the satisfaction

scale.

 

Respondent

Partner

Children

Other

Satisfaction

 

Cooking I
preparing meals

 

Cleaning

 

Supervising
children’s play
or free time

 

Toileting
children

 

Feeding children

 

Putting children
to bed

 

Bathing children

 

Dressing
children

 

Punishing
children

 

 

Setting limits for
the
children

 

 

 

 

 

 

194

 

 

Respondent

Partner

Children

Other

Satisfaction

 

Helping children
with
personal/social
problems

 

Helping children
with school work

 

Responsible for
finances I bill

paying

 

Maintaining cars

 

Maintaining
house

 

Work outside I
yard work

 

Driving to
appointments I
school

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the satisfaction scale, how satisﬁed are you with the overall current
division of labor in your house?

Satisfaction with division overall

195

 

INTRODUCE ECO MAP

Now, I’d like to show you this picture and complete it with you. This is called an
Eco Map and it’s a way of drawing a picture of the connections or relationships
that family members have with one another, as well as with systems in their
environment. The large circle in the center of the page represents your family
and the circles around the edge of the paper represent people and institutions in
the community. We’ll be drawing different lines connecting you and your family
to each other and to the other circles on the page. The type of line that you pick
will depend on the type of relationship you experience with each one.

EXPLAIN KEY ON ECO MAP FIGURE

The key that explains the types of lines we will be drawing is herein the corner of
the page. Let’s start with your family. First tell me who is in your family. I’ll draw
symbols to represent each individual, then you can tell me what type of line to
draw and I I! ﬁll it in for you.

FOR EACH FAMILY MEMBER, ASK

Can you describe your relationship with (FAMIL Y MEMBER)?
What line best represents the relationship?

How does this relationship impact you?

How does it impact your family?

SHOW SATISFACTION SCALE

For each relationship in your family, use this scale to show how satisﬁed you are
with the relationship. As the scale shows, one means that you are not at all
satisﬁed and seven means that you are perfectly satisﬁed. (Write scale
responses near each relationship line.)

FINISH THE HOUSEHOLD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Taken as a whole, how would you describe your family relationships?

In what ways are your family relationships stressful?

In what ways are your family relationships supportive?

What are the strengths of you family?

What are the weaknesses?

BEGIN OUTSIDE CIRCLES: .
Now I’d like you to choose which lines connect you to each of the outside circles

on the Eco Map.

How has this individual / group impacted you as a parent?

How have these relationships impacted your children?

In what way is this individual / group supportive to you and /or your family?
In what way is this individual / group stressful for you and /or your family?”

COMPLETE SATISFACTION SCALE FOR EACH OUTSIDE CIRCLE.

ADD ADDITONAL CIRCLES AS NEEDED.

196

FINAL QUESTIONS

Finally, I would like to ask you about your experiences in balancing your identity
as a parent and as a lesbian. (Summarize the respondents experience if you
know it, 9.9. ‘First you identiﬁed as a mother, right? And then you came out as a
lesbian when the kids were 5 and 6.’ OR ask the respondent to tell you which of
the identities came ﬁrst.)

What was it like for you to ﬁrst think about being both a lesbian and a
parent?

Did you have any pre-existing ideas about how the two identities would ﬁt

together? Were these messages positive or negative? Examples?

Did you have any models for being a lesbian mother? Who?

197

Is your experience of being a lesbian parent like you thought it would be?
Why or why not?

Have you had any experiences in which you felt a conﬂict between being a
lesbian and being a parent? Examples? How did you resolve it?

THANK PARTICIPANT.

Would you be willing to be contacted again for a chance to participate in
additional research ?” (Mark on form. )

QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK

198

APPENDIX F

TABLES

199

Table 1. Respondents’ race, household income, and level of education.

 

 

 

 

f % if interviewed
(total n=21)
Race / ethnicity (n=125)
Caucasian I White 1 12 89.6 18
African American / Black 7 5.6 3
Biracial
African American I White 1 .8 -
Other 4 3.2 -
Asian IAsian America 1 .8 -
Annual household income (n = 90)
Under $12,000 2 2.2 1
$12,000-20,000 5 5.6 1
$20,001-30,000 7 7.9 3
$30,001-40,000 12 13.5 -
$40,001-50,000 5 5.6 1
$50,001-75,000 26 29.2 7
Over $75,000 32 36.0 8
Highest education level achieved (n=125)
High school I GED 5 4.0 -
Some college IAA 27 21.6 7
BA I BS 39 31.2 8
MA I MS 39 31.2 5
PhD I MD I other professional 15 12.0 1

 

200

Table 2. Respondents’ participation in the work force and ﬁelds of employment.

 

 

 

f % # interviewed
(total n=21)

Participation in the work force (n = 124)
Full-time worker 87 70.2 12
Part-time worker 22 17.7 4
Stay-at-home mother 10 8.1 3
Unemployed / not looking for work 3 2.4 2
Unemployed I looking for work 1 .8 -
Retired 1 .8 -

Field of employment (n = 115)

Human services 29 25.2 6
Health I medical services 23 20.0 5
Finance / business 17 14.8 3
Education 17 14.8 3
Trades I skilled labor 9 7.8 1
Service 8 7.0 1
Law 6 5.2 1
Civil Service 4 3.5 1
Fine Arts 2 1.7 -

 

201

Table 3. Respondents’ religious afﬁliation and participation.

 

f % # interviewed

 

 

(total n=21)
Religious afﬁliation (n = 123)
Protestant 66 53.6 8
None 32 26.0 9
Catholic 1 1 8.9 2
Jewish 8 6.5 -
Pagan [Wicca 6 4.9 2
Participation in religious activities (n = 123)
Never 16 12.9 3
Once or twice a year 24 19.4 7
Less than once per month 16 12.9 -
Once or twice a month 26 21.0 4
About once per week 27 21.8 3
More than once per week 14 11.3 4

 

202

Table 4. Respondents’ relationship status.

 

 

f % # interviewed
(total n=21)

Current relationship status (n = 125)
Partnered, living together 109 87.2 19
Single 7 5.6 1
Partnered, living separately 8 6.4 1
Widowed 1 .8 -

 

203

 

9mm 9. v. ..N we ado mm mm 553 FEED

 

 

 

 

E. m v. E 3 ode on mop .8598 :30
was 2 new 8 98 E N: .2635
me v ...vm ow o. E mm m: “cocoa Manor. @220
F.» 0 new 3 2K mm o: 9.2: 9230
06 m adv mm ohm on 8.. Loose. 329.3.
mm? 9 m. «N K can 8 mm? 3:39 8E0
3: 2 3w em 98 2: was .8362
as n R. 3 av ...Nm 8 t P L....s:o..>.ou
9mm om mam mm «.3 cm mm 55m...
Rm v Nam 3... 03 wow v9 5255 .8622
- - 9mm mm 68 5 no? .0233 838m _m_oom
3: t odm hm Dom cm 2: 559m
0.3 3 ode we tom 8.. F: 8522
ad m 93 mm 0.5 «or E 865
we m adv mm m. 5 m: mm? 5.220
me u mdm mm v.8 mm? mm? acorn.
o\o \ Q0 k. o\o x.
92833
oztoaasw “oz m. 93.395 m. 9.65. LonEsz

 

.cozmucoto _maxom .mucoocoamo. Co 0526 mcomcon. .m 238.

204

Table 6. Sex, age, and grade in school for respondents’ children.

 

 

 

 

f %
Sex (n = 196)
Female 92 46.9
Male 104 53.1
Age (n=197)
0-5 years 55 27.9
6—1 2 years 54 27.4
13—18 years 35 17.8
over 18 years 53 26.9
Grade in school (n = 194)
Not in school - infant 30 15.5
Preschool 18 9.3
Elementary school (K-5) 51 26.3
Middle school (6-8) 15 7.7
High school (9-12) 26 13.4
College 15 7.7
Not in school - adult 39 20.1

 

205

Table 7. Race / ethnicity for respondents’ children.

 

 

f %
Race I ethnicity (n = 197)

Caucasian I White 142 72.1
African American I Black 21 10.7

Biracial -
African American I White 15 7.6
Other 9 4.6
Hispanic I Chicano 5 2.5
Asian / Asian American 3 1.5
Native American 2 1.0

 

206

Table 8. Living arrangements for respondents’ children.

 

 

f %
Living arrangement (n = 193)

In respondent’s home full time 123 63.7
In own home, apartment, dorm 46 23.8
Half time with respondent I half time with father 12 6.2
In father’s home full time 5 2.6
With other mother 5 2.6
Other 2 1.0

 

207

Table 9. Child care arrangements for respondents’ children.

 

 

.r %
Child care provider (n = 101)

Group day care I preschool 29 28.7
Respondent and/or partner 21 20.8
School based care I latch key 15 14.9
In sitter’s home 15 14.9
Sitter I nanny in respondents home 5 5.0
Members of respondent’s household 4 4.0
Relatives living separately 4 4.0
Other 8 7.9

 

Note. 96 children needed no child care.

208

Table 10. Timing and methods of creating families.

 

 

 

f %
Child joined family (n = 197)
Before current partner (primary parents) 83 42.1
At same time as current partner (step parents) 30 15.2
After current partner (co-parents) 74 37.6
No partner / not applicable 10 5.1
Pathway to parenthood (n = 194)
Birth child by heterosexual liaison 109 56.2
Birth child by anonymous donor 33 17.0
Birth child by known donor 12 6.2
Adopted child 24 12.4
Foster child 8 4.1
Legal guardian 6 3.1
Informal guardian 2 1.0

 

209

 

Locoo maoE>coc< 3.08.0 «\. Pi E0

 

 

 

 

Lococ maoE>coc< 6.095 «\. ..i 30 28> mp 9...; so 958
Locou 395692 .3095 mi E0 occoctmn. aném xomﬁ ov p.550
98.. s L. of; a 8%
8:82 .895 N- >8 85:5“. 3.8-8 225 on 2.2.
. 5:82 5.2 s mi so 98.. a.
.. 5:82 .52 mi so 8.2th can .96 922, 2 .228
mac.» 0
5:8 3258.2 222. .1 >8 8.2%.. o. 3-8 922, 8 .63
23> ~\. ..
some... _sosa «x. mi 30 885.8 0.8-8 £22. em . 8:

DOOIDdIO >Jm<m HMZO ADOKO

oooﬁcocnn
2 $353 eon. EEO cob—p.20 n38» hosted oEooE comm ou< EEoosonm

 

.mucoucoamo. 26.22:. .3 can»

210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ocou maoE>coc< 2.5.5 N- :5 Emo> mp
.58“. 89:..85 9...; s 3: >8 Beaten. vases 9.55 8 p 8.»?
wastes. 2.55 s hi so as; m
masses. 2.55 Si ..om Began. View as; «m .93.
.23“. xomﬁ m- >om
.28“. xomﬁ o T >om Emo> ~\. m .
Lemon coma s 2: 3m 855.8 v.3 85 as; 3 p933
cozaou< xomE .moE mi >om
..ocoo waoE>coc< .m.om..m ~\. mi >om
.5233. .m.om..m ~\. or ...0 93> up 3.65 on arms.
. c2886. xoma ~\. mi ...0 toasted van be>0 2...; mm m..o;w
mcucoE m
ommEms. 223 ~\. 3. >om 35:th v.o~-~P 2...; 5 a 5.82.
wastes. 222. s- 3m
masses. 9.55 2i so masm v.9 A 2.55 8 . 8.5
ooozodzo mun—0.5.19.3 dDOmO
.uooﬁcocan
8 >223... com. 220 5.6.20 23qu Lenten. oEooE comm ou< E>coosomd

 

.umassoo : was»

211

 

 

.mmeoc :02“ E DOSQZOF: COED; mmuocmﬂ 0 .mwom—Q x50; :05“ E Bgﬂzmur: COED; mmuocmv a Stmbmzca

0.... .0 0026.23... coEoz 029.00 . 090.an0 :03 o5: 0:22.00... 222. 0503 E2? .0. 5.22.0 022.3 . .202

 

 

 

 

 

 

masses. 2...? 0. so
88...: 9...; :i so 28.. s m
«8...»: 2...; 9i .8 8.8.3.. 0.8-9. 222, mm 929.0
.0200 maoE>coc< .0895 mi >om 98> 0 0.006 3 Eon
8.280 3.8.5 2: >8 885...... vs. .90 .35 mm as;
6:00 .565. 2...; .moE mi ...O
masses. 2...; as. so as... 2 as; we 98
88...: 2.52, 8- >8 8.8%.. 0....» .96 2...; 8 5.3
83.5.2 2...; :i .60 28.. N 2.55 «N .. 8850
masses. 2...; m T so 8.2th 0.2.8. 2.55 mm . 0.33.
m. .0IIIiIIzm00m.._00< ”m. mimixwima. o. Imo
oooﬁcoﬁn
o. >a35ud eon. EEO c2220 0350 35.0.. 088:. 003. eu< E>cooso0a

 

82.....8 : 29.;

212

 

2.0.0 0. m0...0:..0000
200.6000 00.3.0
...a... 02.3.0

mmssa c3200

000030.000 .00...E0. 00000.0.

00280.20. 020000-002

30......0. 002.03.

.0500. 300 0.0.00.0. 0. 0.00.0.3

68:22". 2.00.
00.000. 0:... 0.00. .0. 0.7.00

00.2.00 00.0000. 000 00.000

00.2.00 000 0.00.0.2 0003.0m

02.50. .0505 00.30. s5... 3&0... 0222.000 .0. 033

>00E..0. 0. 00.00.0000”.
3.0.050 00.225
00..0..0.00.000 00.000.900.00
2.0.0. 00. 0. 60.0.0. 00.0.5
02.00.000.800 00 0:00“.
2.30.... . 0.0.2.00

0.00000 0003.0m

213

 

 

 

00.0..00 00 .0005.

 

2:00. 000 0.02. 00.000.00 .0. 3.00.95 0.00.00. .00.00.0.0-000 .0 b...0.0.>0_
2.0.0. 000 0.02. .0 00..0.00.0. 00..0.00..0 .00x00 .0000 0.000.006 00.00005.

..00000 .0000.00.0.0. 00._.0.0. .00.0E 00.000. 0.02.0. 0000....0 00.000000.

..0000m .0.000.0..00_ 00...... .0000@

...0>> 0.00.0.2 55> 0.0000m 0.00.0..00 55>

 

..00...00..>00 .0.000 00. 000 00...0.0. .00.00. 00.000. 0003.00 00.000. 0.0000..0.0m .0. 0.00 h

214

APPENDIX G

FIGURES

215

 

O .0

002.30:
30.00.05

 

 

 

 

 

*0.

 

.008 000 haﬁamm

 

. d Uhﬁwﬂh

0.000000:

00.0.0.0».
30.0220

 

 

u 0.0000350. 0. 000000

 

 

 

-77.... a 000....» .000000...

........ I 03.0000 ..0..000..m

in..- I 0.5.000 600:0

JJJI I o>_~un..0.:_c—.Oz

000......» .3000 D n 0.02 O n 0.2%...

.00000

00.0..01

 

00.2 00m. 2.0.0...

 

 

 

216

 

LIZ

 

Marquette
2
Schoolcraft

 

2 N

Saginaw

Lapeer

Genesee
5

Clinton

Ottowa 2

l

Uakland
Ingham Living— 9
31 eton
1

Jackson

3

 

Figure 2. Respondents' primary residence by county.

 

 

 

 

1|"!

.800... 0.0000003. .0 0.000..

o...ozoz.voznw..zez.vzzo,.oa«ac.oezo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if L t? r» P r r.— rbh L! p P» . P *.L . o
.P
N
N
n
m m
m. 2
rem.
9
S
,m
.o
x.

 

..ownc. 0.00000000. 00.00000 .0. 0.0000..0_0. .0 0.000.. .m 0.00.“.

ovwmnmommnvnmmmmpmommwousmommmvwnmumwwommwmphwowmwvwmpwp Co. 0 w x. m m 0 n N w 0

LI

 

P

>

h

L

h

p

P

 

\r

.r

_
if

.7

 

0.00.. 0. 00<

r F LP Lr P — b .— LV L L P P P p L .

.Cmrnc. 00.0..00 .0.:0000000. .0 00.0. .0 0.00.“.

F

F +

 

F

p

h p .

.—

TN

.0

or

1N—

.0..

 

rev

uajpuuo ;o .quumN

 

219

BIBLIOGRAPHY

220

 

Bibliography

Ainslie, J. & Feltey, K. M. (1991). Deﬁnition and dynamics of motherhood
and family in lesbian communities. Marriage and Family Review. 17 (1-2), 63-85.

Allen, K. & Demo, D. (1995). The families of lesbians and gay men: A
new frontier in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1-17.

Amup, K. (Ed.). (1995). Lesbian parenting: Livi_r_Ig with pride and
preiudice. Charlottetown, PEI, Canada: Gynergy Books.

Baptiste, D. A. (1987). Psychotherapy with gay/lesbian couples and their
children in "stepfamilies": A challenge for marriage and family therapists. Journal
of Homgexuglitv. 14 (1-2), 223-238.

 

Berardo, F. (1991). Family research in the 1980's: Recent trends and
future directions. In A. Booth (Ed.). Contemporary families: Looking forward,
looking back. (pp. 1-11). Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.

Browne, M. N. & Giampetro, A. (1985). The contribution of social science
data to the adjudication of child custody disputes? Capital Universm Law
Review 15, 43-58.

 

Chambers, D. L. (1998). Lesbian divorce: A commentary on legal issues.
American Joml of Orthopsychiatm, 68 (3), 420-423.

Crawford, S. (1987). Lesbian families: Psychosocial stress and the family-
building process. In Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective (Eds.), Lesbian

psycholpgies: Explorations and challenges (pp. 195-214). Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois Press.

 

Curry, H., Clifford, D. & Leonard, R. (1994). A legal guide for lesbian and
gay couples (8m ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.

Dahlheimer, D. & Feigal, J. (1991). Bridging the gap. Family Therapy
Networker 15 (1), 44-53.

 

Demo, D. and Allen, K. (1996). Diversity within lesbian and gay families:
Challenges and implications for family theory and research. Journal of Social
and Personal Relgtionsg 3 (3), 415-434.

Educational Advocacy Committee of Family Pride Coalition. (1998).

Opening doors: Lesbian and gay parents and schools. [Pamphlet]. San Diego,
CA: Author.

221

 

Erlichman, K. (1988). Lesbian mothers: Ethical issues in social work
practice. Women ancLTherapv. 8, 207-224.

Falk, P. J. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family
law. American Psycholggist. 44 (6), 941-947.

Faria, G. (1994). Training for family preservation with lesbian families.
Families in Society. 75 (7), 416-422.

Ferree, M. (1991). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family

research. In A. Booth (Ed.). Contemporam families: Looking fowvard, looking

back. (pp. 103-121). Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.

Flaks, D. K., Ficher, |., Masterpasqua, F. & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians
choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents
and their children. Develcmmental Psycholpgy, 31 (1), 105-114.

Fonow, M. & Cook, J. (1991). Back to the future: A look at the second
wave of feminist epistemology and methodology. In M. Fodow and J. Cook,
(Eds), Beyond methodolgqy: Feminist scholarship as lived research, (pp.1-15).
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Ganong, L. 8 Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M. B, Gray, J. 8 Smith, L. (1986).
Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual
mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (2), 167-184.

 

Greene, B. (1990). Sturdy bridges: The role of African-American mothers
in the socialization of African-American children. Women and Therapy, 10 (1-2),
205-225.

Hall. M. (1978). Lesbian families: Cultural and clinical issues. Social
Work 23 (5), 380-385.

 

Hand, S. (1991). The lesbian parenting ocuple. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Professional School of Psychology, San Francisco.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Cornell
University Press.

Hare, J. (1994). Concerns and issues faced by families headed by a
lesbian couple. Families in Society, 75 (1), 27-35.

222

 

Harold, R., Palmiter, M., Lynch, 8., Freedman-Doan, C. & Eccles, J.
(under contract). Telling the family story: The process. In R. Harold, (Ed.).
BecominLa family: Parents’ stories ﬁnd their implications for practice research
and policy. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

 

Harold, R., Mercier, L. & Colarossi, L. (1997). Eco maps: A tool to bridge
the practice-research gap. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24 (4), 29-
44.

Harris, M. B. & Turner, P. H. (1985). Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of
Homomualitv. 12(2), 101-113.

Hartman, A. (1996). Social policy as a context for lesbian and gay
families. In J. Laird and R.-J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gay men in couples
snd Lamilies: A handbook for therapists, (pp. 69-85). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Harvard Law Review. (1990). Sexual orientation and the law.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hill, M. (1987). Child-rearing attitudes of Black lesbian mothers. In
Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective (Ed.), Lesbian psycholggies:
Explorations_snd challenges. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Hitchens, D. (1979). Social Attitudes, legal standards and personal
trauma in child custody cases. Jouga‘l of Homosexualig, 5 (1-2), 89-95.

Hitchens, D. J. (1988). Legal issues in donor insemination. In Cheri Pies
(Ed.), Considering parenthood (2nd ed). Minneapolis, MN: Spinsters Ink.

Jayaratne, T. & Stewart, A. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative methods
in the social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies. In In M.

Fodow and J. Cook, (Eds), Beyond methodolpgy: Feminist scholarship as lived
research, (pp. 85-106). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Kenney, J. W. & Tash, D. T. (1992). Lesbian childbearing couples'
dilemmas and decisions. Health Care for Women lntemational 13, 209-219.

 

Kirkpatrick, M. (1987). Clinical implications of lesbian mother studies.
JoumaLl of Homosexual'gy, 14 (1-2), 201-211.

Kleber, D. J., Howell, R. J. & Tibbits-Kleber, A. L. (1986). The impact of
parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature. Bulletin

of the American Academy of Psychiatu and the Law, 14 (1), 81-83.

223

 

Laird, J. (1994). Lesbian families: A cultural perspective. Smith College
Studies in Social WorL64 (3), 263-296.

Laird, J. & Green, R.-J. (1996). Lesbians and gays in couples and
families: Central issues. In J. Laird and R.-J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gay
men in couples and families: A handbook for therapists, (pp. 1-12). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1997, September).
“Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Fact Sheet.” [On-line]. Available:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/documents.

Levine, M. and Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the
work force. Signs, 9 (4), 700-710.

Lewin, E. (1993). Lesbian mother; Accounts of gender in American
culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

 

Lott-Whitehead, L. & Tully, C. (1993). The family lives of lesbian mothers.
Smith CollegStudies in Social Work 63 (3), 265-280.

 

Markowitz, L. (1991). Homosexuality: Are we still in the dark?
Networker. 15 (1), 26-35.

Martin, A. (1993). The lesbian and gay parenting handbook: Creating and
raising our fmilies. New York: HarperCollins.

McCandlish, B. (1987). Against all odds: Lesbian mother family
dynamics. In F. Bozett (Ed.). Gay and lesbian parents, (pp. 23-36). New York:
Praeger.

McCrohan, N. (1996). Considering parenthood: A predictive model of
lesbian women's decisions to parent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Miller, B. & Moore, K. (1991). Adolescent sexual behavior, pregnancy
and parenting: Research through the 1980’s. In A. Booth (Ed.). ContemporaLy

families: Looking fonNard, looking back. (pp. 307-326). Minneapolis: National
Council on Family Relations.

Mitchell, V. (1996). Two moms: Contribution of the planned lesbian family
to the deconstruction of gendered parenting. In J. Laird and R.-J. Green (Eds),

Lesbians and gay men in couples and falmilieis: A handbook for therapists, (pp.
343-357). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

224

 

Morton, S. B. (1998). Lesbian divorce. American Joumslpf
Orthcmsvchiatrv. 68 (3), 410-419.

Muzio, C. (1993). Lesbian co-parenting: On being/being with the invisible
(m)other. Smith College Studies in Social Work. 63 (3), 215-229.

Muzio, C. (1996). Lesbians choosing children: Creating families, creating
narratives. In J. Laird and R. -J. Green (Eds), Lesbians and gay men in couples
and families: A handbook for therapist_s, (pp. 358-369). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Cods of ethics. Silver
Springs, MD: Author.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (1996, September). “Statement
on ENDA and DOMA.” [On-line]. Available: www.ngltf.org/presslthevote.html.

Osterweil, D. (1991). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian
parenting couples who are parenting their ﬁrst child together. (Doctoral
dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1991). Dissertation
Abstracts lntemational 52-1 18, 6093.

 

Pagelow, M. (1980). Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: A
comparison of problems, coping and solutions. Journal of Homosexualny' , 5(3),
189-204.

Parks, C. (1998). Lesbian parenthood: A review of the literature.
Americgn Journal of Orthopsychiatgy,68 (3), 376-389.

Patterson, C. J. (1994). Lesbian and gay families. Cprrent Directions in
Psycholpgical Science, 3 (3), 62-64.

Patterson, C. J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents'
division of labor and children's adjustment. Developmental Psycholpgy, 31, 115-
123.

Pies, C. (1987). Lesbians choosing children: The use of social group
work in maintaining and strengthening the primary relationship. Journal of Social

Work and Human Sexual'ﬁy, 5 (2), 79-88.

Pies, C. (1988). Considering parenthood (2nd ed). Minneapolis, MN:
Spinsters Ink.

Pies, C. (1989). Lesbians and the choice to parent. Marriage and Family
ReviewL14 (3-4), 137-154.

225

 

Polikoff, N. (1986). Lesbian mothers, lesbian families: Legal obstacles,
legal challenges. Review of Law and Social Change. 14 (4), 907-914.

Povemy, L. and Finch, W. (1988). Gay and lesbian domestic
partnerships: Expanding the deﬁnition of family. Social Casework 69, 116-121.

 

Rand, C., Graham, D. L., & Rawlings, E. l. (1982). Psychological health
and factors the court seeks to control in lesbian mother custody cases. Journal
of Homosexuplitv. 8 (1), 27-39.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Rivera, R. (1987). Legal issues in gay and lesbian parenting. In
Frederick W. Bozett (Ed), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 199-230). New York:
Praeger.

Robson, R. (1994). Resisting the family: Repositioning lesbians in legal
theory. Signs, 19(4), 975-996.

Rohrbaugh, J. B. (1989). Choosing children: Psychological issues in
lesbian parenting. Women and Therapy, 8, 51-64.

Rohrbaugh, J. B. (1992). Lesbian families: Clinical issues and theoretical
implications. Professional Psycholpgy: Research and Practice, 23 (6), 467-473.

Sears, J. T. (1994). Challenges for educators: Lesbian, gay and bisexual
families. High School Joums|J7 (4), 138-156.

Shernoff, M. (1984). Family therapy for lesbian and gay clients. Social
Work 29 (4), 393-396.

 

Smith, D. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist
sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Sprey, J. (1991). Current theorizing on the family: An appraisal. In A.

Booth (Ed), Contemporau families: Looking forWard, looking back. (pp. 12-27).
Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations.

Stacey, J. and Thome, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in
sociology. Social Problems 32, 301-316.

 

State of Michigan Ofﬁce of Management and Budget. (1990). 1990
STF1A - 3A Data. [Online] Available http://www.state.mi.us/dmblmicl.

226

 

Steinhom, A. l. (1985). Lesbian mothers. In H. Hidalgo, T. Peterson and
N. Woodman (Eds), Lesbian and gsy issues: Resource manual for social
workers (pp. 33-37). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.

 

Stiglitz, E. (1990). Caught between two worlds: The impact of a child on
a lesbian couple's relationship. Women and Therapy, 10 (1-2), 99-116.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of gualitative research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Tully, C. (1995). In sickness and in health: Forty years of research on
lesbians. Joumsl of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 3 (1), 1-18.

Turner, P. H., Scadden, L. & Harris, M. B. (1990). Parenting in gay and
lesbian families. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1 (3), 55-66.

Ussher, J. M. (1991). Family and couples therapy with gay and lesbian

clients: Acknowledging the forgotten minority. Journal of Family therapy, 13 (2),
131-148.

Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays and kinship.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Wright, J. (1998). Lesbian step families: An ethnpgysphy of love. New
York: Harrington Park Press.

227