Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook



 

Book Review: Modern Families - Parents and Children in New Family Forms

26 May 2015

By Antony Blackburn-Starza


Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms

By Professor Susan Golombok

Published by Cambridge University Press

ISBN-10: 1107650259, ISBN-13: 978-1107650251

Buy this book from Amazon UK


Assisted conception services have facilitated the creation of new family forms that did not exist until the late 20th century. Yet it is frequently said that law and policy in this area are based on outdated assumptions about family life and parenting. Susan Golombok's 'Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms' challenges the assumption that the traditional nuclear family is the best environment in which to raise children. It evaluates empirical data on parenting and children's psychological well-being in 'new family' forms - lesbian or gay families, single-parent families, and families created by IVF or surrogacy - asking whether children's experiences are really so different from those raised in 'traditional' families.

Moving across a range of studies, Golombok evaluates what we know (and what we don't know) about children and parents' well-being. The result is a thought provoking and balanced guide through the data, and the answer to the above question will not come as a surprise to many - children born after various forms of assisted conception are not put at a disadvantage (they may even be at an advantage in early years). However, more importantly in my view, the text challenges the key assumptions that underpin the belief that children are somehow affected by new family forms - and the conclusions are stark: the gender of parents and biological relatedness is not essential for children's psychological well-being, and there is no evidence that assisted conception place children at risk or that family structures and sexual orientation play a fundamental role in a child's personal development.

So what was all the fuss about? Golombok reminds us of the stigmatisation faced by lesbian families, the unease over 'test-tube babies', and the hostility towards surrogacy following the Baby M case. Both in the UK Parliament and the media, children born to these new family forms were being presented at being 'at risk' - the parents' motivations were treated with suspicion and the family structures considered detrimental to a child's well-being. However, while social attitudes around assisted conception have progressed significantly since the 1970s and 80s, there remains this residual idea that the traditional family model is somehow better. This book invites us to reconsider this position and casts an analytical spotlight on two key pillars in fertility law and policy: the importance of the gestational link and the genetic connection between parents and children. Both feature heavily in debates on donor conception and surrogacy.

The removal of donor anonymity in the UK in 2005 was in part due to the argument that donor-conceived children have the right to know their biological origins. As Golombok explains, the view that donor conception can have negative consequences for parenting and children's well-being results from concerns about the impact of secrecy on the family (not telling the child they are donor conceived) and also the absence of a genetic relationship (that the genetic connection matters).

The book highlights research on adoption that has shown knowing one's biological parents can be a benefit to children, and family therapy research has identified how secrecy can create boundaries and cause anxieties. Yet if keeping a child's origins secret can interfere with communication, studies on the matter are not conclusive about whether donor conception causes impaired family functioning, or if impaired family functioning results in poor communication. This, in my view, reflects a broader critique that can be made of empirical data in this field. From the studies included in the text, it is often not clear whether, or how, assisted conception has anything to do with it. It is crucial that any such evaluation does not easily mistake a correlation between ordinary family disharmony and assisted conception with a significant degree of causality.

This danger of misattribution can also be seen in the data on biological linkage. Although it has been observed that an absence of genetic connection to one parent may have implications for identity and the child's relationship with their parents, research on step-parent families has shown that such difficulties can arise from other factors, such as the disruption of a relationship with an existing parent and acquisition of new family members.

On the controversial issue of disclosure of biological origins, Golombok observes that there is no association between the absence of genetic connection and child-adjustment problems in families who have decided not to disclose the use of a gamete donor to their children. This, in my view, weakens the arguments for the state's interest in promoting disclosure (in some families I would imagine it could be quite harmful), but Golombok does also highlight that children are better off being told earlier and that there is some evidence of more positive functioning in disclosing families - but this cannot be assumed to be a direct result of disclosure.

On surrogacy, Golombok presents findings from the UK Longitudinal Study of Assisted Reproduction Families, which first assessed families with children at the age of one. The study revealed that contrary to concerns around surrogacy (e.g. the prejudice, the intended parent's nine-month wait and the need for a positive relationship with the surrogate) intended parents fared better at the early stages of parenthood than those who conceived naturally. Intended parents showed lower levels of stress and depression, greater warmth and attachment-related behaviour, greater enjoyment of parenthood. But they also displayed higher levels of emotional over-involvement, which is not a good thing! When the children reached seven years old there was no difference between surrogate families and natural conception,showing that any benefits of assisted conception level out over time.

Interestingly, Golombok identifies how surrogates and intended parents often get along well after the child's birth, meeting at least once. She also observes how there is no difference between surrogacy and egg donation families, suggesting the gestational link is 'not essential for family functioning'. Both of these observations lend some credence to calls for recognising surrogacy arrangements or reforming the laws on legal motherhood.

Overall, the book highlights the need to treat concerns around assisted conception with caution, preparing to challenge assumptions with empirical findings, but also to identify positive aspects about parenting in 'new families'. It also highlights the need for further research. As Golombok concedes, much of the data are limited and most of the studies are small, tending to focus on preschool and early school-age children. Less is known about adolescents and beyond.

The book therefore offers useful toolkit through which to speak about law and policy in this area with some empirical grounding. However, I have two reservations about such an approach. First, I wonder if the empirical agenda is doomed for failure at the outset due to imperfect data. A high level of causal complexity emerges from the book and, if each family is really so unique, and the factors that influence children's well-being so numerous, interlinked and opaque, then what's the use of evidence-based policymaking? Indeed, it could be dangerous to generalise from data sets.

Second, I have reservations about a model based on the premise that 'parenting' and child welfare are measurable in any meaningful way (other than identifying physical and emotional abuse). Whereas it may be helpful to think about beneficial ways of parenting, at the end of the day, surely it comes down to just not doing a really bad job in the circumstances - whatever they may be. There is a danger that empirical evaluation of parenting can seep into ideas of a 'right' way of doing things, overturning assumptions about the value of a traditional family only to replace them with others.

However, this is a concern I have with the field, rather than the book, which successfully presents the data in an accessible and impartial manner, guiding the reader through the main points and limitations, and allowing everyone to form their own, substantiated opinion on the matter.


Buy Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms from Amazon UK.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

03 October 2016 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
This collection of essays from leading lawyers, fertility professionals, social scientists, ethicists, and others documents the experiences of families engaging in assisted conception, adding to the growing body of empirical studies in this area...
30 November 2015 - by Pod Academy 
If you missed '10 Years Since the End of Donor Anonymity: Have We Got It Right?', a debate organised by the Progress Educational Trust (PET) in partnership with the National Gamete Donation Trust, then you are in luck. This podcast, produced by Pod Academy, captures some of the highlights from the debate....
09 November 2015 - by Arit Udoh 
'The kids are not alright.' 'Current legislation needs to do more to protect the rights of donor-conceived children.' These were some of the comments made by donor-conceived adults who attended a recent Progress Educational Trust/National Gamete Donation Trust event...
01 September 2015 - by Dr Berenice Golding 
Drawing upon professional and personal perspectives, this book renders visible some of the hidden issues that prevail when donor conception is used to build a family...
20 July 2015 - by Ëlo Luik 
Donor conception continues to mobilise resistance and concern. How, when, under which conditions and by whom reproductive donation should be accessed remains a divisive and controversial issue...

11 May 2015 - by Dr Reuven Brandt 
The type of equipment used and the involvement of licensed medical professionals seem irrelevant to the moral facts that determine which individuals ought to have recognized rights and responsibilities for the children they help create...
23 March 2015 - by Professor Susan Golombok 
The spat between Dolce & Gabbana and Elton John – apart from raising the somewhat baffling question of what exactly are 'chemical' babies? – highlights the more pertinent question of what are the consequences of IVF, surrogacy and other forms of assisted reproduction for parents and children...
02 March 2015 - by Merry Varney and Jemma Dally 
From April 2009, certain procedural steps have been required to ensure non-birth parents of donor conceived children, who are not married to or in a civil partnership with the birth parent, become the legal parent of their child. Unfortunately, a recent audit by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) discovered that 50 clinics reported anomalies with their practices and procedures in respect of the signing of the consent forms for legal parenthood...
09 February 2015 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
This collection of interdisciplinary perspectives and empirical observations on the meanings that are attached to a concept of 'relatedness' in fertility treatment is an important read for anyone involved in assisted conception...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Moving the Boundaries of Human Reproduction

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Anna Smajdor

Sarah Norcross

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT
if you book now


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation