Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men in Europe: Challenges and Barriers on the Journey to Adoption

ABSTRACT

No psychological research has been done investigating the experiences of adoption by sexual minorities living in Europe. This qualitative study is the first cross-national research within the European context giving the floor to LG (lesbian and gay) adoptive parents in order to explore the main challenges they encountered in the transition to adoptive parenthood. Sixty-two LG adoptive parents (16 lesbians and 46 gay men) living in Belgium (n = 14), France (n = 26), and Spain (n = 22) participated in this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to gather information about two key steps in the adoptive path: the decision making and the adoption process itself. Results revealed that while choosing to adopt, LG adoptive parents experienced numerous self-doubts and emotional conflicts driven by introjected heteronormative assumptions about family. During the adoption procedure, they were confronted with a large number of challenges and legal roadblocks connected to their sexual minority status. Exploring the experience of the first generation of LG adoptive parents in Europe provides insight into the great impact that the sociolegal context has on their lives. Findings suggest the necessity of promoting practice geared not only to fight discrimination but also to provide better support to LG people throughout the adoption process.

KEYWORDS:

• Same-sex adoption
• stressors
• challenges
• barriers
• experiences

Literature review

Becoming adoptive parents is generally considered a challenging life transition (Daniluk & Hurtig-Mitchell, 2003; Mallon, 2004) that requires a great level of adjustment both individually and as a couple (Brodzinsky & Huffman, 1988; Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002). Even though the transition to adoptive parenthood has mainly been examined among opposite-sex couples, several studies analyzed this critical life transition among same-sex couples, suggesting that it may be even more stressful for the latter because of the intersection of adoptive and sexual minority statuses (Goldberg, 2012; Goldberg, Downing, & Sauck, 2007; Gross, 2012). Specifically, research evidence suggests that the transition to adoptive parenthood for sexual minorities is often characterized by two kinds of challenges: emotional conflicts and self-incertitude (Gianino, 2008; Goldberg et al., 2007) as well as sociolegal obstacles (Golberg, 2012; Gross, 2012; Matthews & Cramer, 2006). Regarding the first point, the literature shows that LG people who choose to adopt experience a phase of deep reflection in order to overcome introjected negative stereotypes about same-sex parenting (Gianino, 2008). A study by Brown, Smalling, Groza, and Ryan (2009) of 182 LG adoptive parents living in the United States showed that parents in the sample reported that they struggled with multiple personal doubts and had to overcome the belief that their homosexuality prevented them from being parents. Based on their experiences, these parents reported the need to gain confidence to be good parents. The tone of their narratives also suggested internalized homophobia and self-imposed biases. Gianino (2008) showed similar results through his qualitative research with eight gay male couples on the transition to adoptive parenthood. Thematic analyses revealed that in the pre-adoptive period, gay men confronted the task of defeating negative introjected stereotypes concerning same-sex parenting. After adoption placements, gay adoptive parents experienced a shift in identity from being gay and childless to being gay and a parent. Analyses showed that this phase of self-doubts was especially challenging for participants in the sample because, as gay men, they must deal with both negative attitudes toward same-sex parenting and with negative attitudes based on their gender as men and parents (Gianino, 2008).

In terms of institutional barriers, data on the experiences of LG adoptive parents living in the United States show that the adoption process for same-sex couples is an obstacle course marked by unique and additional challenges compared with those encountered by opposite-sex couples who choose this route to parenthood (Goldberg, 2012). When living in countries that prohibit same-sex adoption, parents have to face the difficult choice of deciding who will be the legal parent and adopt as a single parent, whereas the non-legal parent hides during the adoption process (Appel, 2003; Gianino, 2008; Goldberg et al., 2007). This procedure can cause distress in non-legal parents because of their invisibility, isolation, and lack of legal relationship with their child (Goldberg, 2012). When, in the best cases, the prospective parents live in countries that allow same-sex couples to adopt, the first step in the journey to adoption is to find inclusive and gay-friendly adoption agencies (Goldberg, 2012). Some researchers showed that LG people experience prejudice, discrimination, and stigma associated with their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) status in working with adoption agencies and social workers (Brodzinsky & Pertman, 2012). An additional unique roadblock LG people encountered during the adoption process is the discrimination and resistance from some birth parents to placing their child with same-sex couples (Downs & James, 2006). As pointed out by Goldberg (2012), many gay male adoptive parents in the United States faced negative experiences with adoption agencies on a continuum: from extreme and overt forms of heterosexism (such as rejection of gay men as potential clients) to less direct forms (such as classes and paperwork that ignored the unique experience of same-sex couples together with a lack of knowledge of state laws regarding same-sex adoption). A national survey on adoption agencies' perspectives on LG prospective parents (Brodzinsky, Patterson, & Vaziri, 2002) showed that placement of children with LG people considerably varied depending on the agency's affiliation and the type of adoption program. More precisely, non-religious-affiliated agencies focusing on special needs adoptions were more likely to accept applications from LG candidates than agencies supporting Catholic beliefs and focusing on international adoptions (Brodzinsky et al., 2002).

Several American studies have specifically addressed the socioinstitutional barriers faced by sexual minorities through the adoption process from the perspective of same-sex couples themselves. Brooks and Goldberg (2001) examined perceived adoption barriers by lesbians and gay men through focus groups with a small group (N = 11) of current and prospective adoptive and foster parents. Findings showed that one of the greatest obstacles for sexual minorities was being confronted with negative beliefs and attitudes from the professionals in charge, who were questioning LG applicants' parenting capacities. Research by Matthews and Cramer (2006) explored barriers experienced by 16 gay male adoptive parents. Based on their reports, gay men were discouraged by social workers to be open about their sexual orientation at the preplacement stage. They also felt pressured by adoption agencies to adopt children who were older or had special needs. Challenges encountered by lesbian couples seeking to adopt were examined by Goldberg et al. (2007) in a study with 70 women. Results indicated that the transition to adoptive parenthood of lesbians in the sample was marked by great tension between legal barriers and their own desire for sexual orientation openness. More encouraging findings came from a quantitative study by Ryan and Whitlock (2007) with 96 lesbian adoptive parents. Data from this survey showed that the adoption experience of this sample of lesbians was positive. In particular, they reported a high level of satisfaction with social workers' inclusion in the setting goals. They were also very satisfied with social workers' responsiveness to their questions and concerns concerning adoption issues.

The present study

While psychological studies on the experiences of same-sex adoptive families are increasing in the United States, at the present time there are no available data in the European context. Such lack of European studies is problematic considering that, by the virtue of living in a heterosexist society, the nature of LG adoption—including procedures, criteria, and timing—frequently varies across cultures and sociolegal contexts (Goldberg, 2012). Thus, in light of the studies conducted in the United States, the purpose of this research is to increase the scientific knowledge concerning the experiences of the first generation of LG parents able to adopt children in Europe. Specifically, through the use of semi-structured interviews, this work sheds light on the main challenges faced by LG adoptive parents living in Belgium, France, and Spain throughout the transition to adoptive parenthood. From a theoretical perspective, we take into account the contribution of two theories: the minority stress theory and the developmental systems approach. According to the minority stress theory, we postulated that stress factors—including the experience of prejudice, expectations of rejection, hiding and concealing, and internalized homophobia—are unique (not experienced by nonstigmatized populations), chronic (related to sociocultural structures), and socially based (depending on social processes, institutions, and structures; Meyer, 2003). According to the developmental systems approach (Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Warren, 2011), we argue that bidirectional relations among individuals, family, and the wider social world (including historical time and place) may directly influence one's psychological experience. We hypothesize that legal, social, and relational context, including the way in which the adoption procedure is carried out, may play an important role in the well-being of LG adoptive parents.

The sociolegal context of same-sex adoption in Europe

Same-sex adoption is a new pathway to parenthood in Europe that awakens keen interest from both the general public and the media. At present, there are a variety of laws concerning LG adoption in Europe. According to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association, Carroll, and Mendos (2017), full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal in 17 countries: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Four countries—Estonia, Italy, Slovenia, and Switzerland—authorize “stepchild adoption,” which allows the partner in a registered partnership to adopt the natural (or sometimes even adopted) child of his or her partner. As for the dependent territories, joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in Gibraltar, Greenland, the Isle of Man, and Jersey. Croatia allows “partner-guardianship,” which is to a great extent comparable to stepchild adoption. In all other countries, the legal status of adoption by same-sex couples is unknown or ambiguous. As a result of this great variety in laws, the experience of LG adoptive parents in Europe can vary considerably according to their country of residence. Although no exact estimates of the number of same-sex adoptions exist, the progressive legalization of LG adoption in many European countries suggests that the number of children adopted by same-sex parents is increasing. For this reason, scientific research on same-sex adoptive families living in Europe needs to be greatly expanded and deepened. In this article we focus on the experience of LG adoptive parents living in three European countries: Belgium, Spain, and France. In this sense, it seems crucial to clarify the sociolegal context of these countries. Moreover, it is important to point out that it is very difficult to find clear data concerning the number of same-sex adoptions. Few official statistics are available and the data are sometimes contradictory or unclear. Thus, most of the information provided in this paper comes from LGBT associations operating in each country of residence.

Belgium

Belgium is officially referred to as one of the most progressive countries as for LGBT rights (Paternotte, 2010). It was the second country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003, and it allowed same-sex adoption in 2006. Despite such legal provisions, many barriers still remain. As of today, 11 years after the bill granting LG couples the right to adopt, the number of same-sex adoptions is very low. According to statistics provided by the Direction Générale Statistique et Information Economique (2015), from 2006 to 2014, only 48 same-sex adoptions were registered out of a total of 6,435 adoptions. Statistics also show that international adoption is a difficult route for these parents (out of the 48 same-sex adoptions, 36 were domestic adoptions and 12 were international), given the strong reluctance of many countries to permit adoption by same-sex couples. Such data suggest that same-sex couples enjoy equal rights only in formal terms, not in practice. On the other hand, statistics provide encouraging findings: In recent years, the number of children adopted by same-sex couples has increased from 1 child in 2009 to 19 children in 2014.

France

In France, the legal recognition of same-sex adoption is a more recent phenomenon. It took until 2013 for Parliament to approve the “Taubira Bill,”¹ which legalized same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. The passage of this law provoked a great deal of disagreement in public opinion. According to Girard (2013), 340,000 to 1 million French demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest this piece of legislation and “defend traditional family values.” Despite the uproar caused by such demonstrations, same-sex adoption was not a new phenomenon in France. Indeed, before the Taubira Bill's passage, same-sex couples used to circumnavigate the barriers imposed by the law by undertaking the international adoption process as single parents (Gross, 2012). Thus, even if they were in a relationship, only one of the partners was legally involved in the adoption process, while the “social parent” had to be left out during the whole adoption process. This procedure resulted in the existence of many de facto same-sex adoptive families, even if they were legally considered single-parent adoptive families. There are no available data regarding the situation from 2013 onward. According to some French LGBT associations, although the legalization of same-sex adoption represented a win for LG rights, ironically, it made the situation even more complex in practical terms. For LG couples, domestic adoption remains very difficult. Moreover, acquiring the status of “same-sex married couple” makes it impossible for them to adopt a child internationally by bypassing legal barriers. Furthermore, many countries have become more attentive to single-parent adoption, which makes this route to parenthood more complicated than in the past.

Spain

Spain was the third country in Europe as well as in the world to provide full equality in terms of matrimonial laws regardless of sexual orientation. In this country, same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption were legalized in 2005. As of today, there are no official statistics on the number of same-sex adoptions in Spain. According to some LGBT associations, the domestic adoption procedure is long and has a very low success rate, especially for same-sex couples. Thus, LG people who want to adopt have two main options: start an international adoption procedure as single parents (as in France) or become a foster family. In the first case, when pursuing adoption in countries that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples, LG parents are sometimes put in the difficult position of swearing falsely, as they are asked to promise under the law to be heterosexual. Unfortunately, this situation is not without risk: if countries of origin discover the adoptive parent's homosexuality after adoption, they can cause serious legal problems and revoke the adoption sentence (Adopción y homosexualidad, n.d.). In the second case, same-sex couples pass through a preliminary phase as a foster family. In this period, children remain in contact with their birth family for a certain period of time, which may be long or short and not necessarily settled in advance. At a later stage, if circumstances allow, the foster parents can legally adopt the child. From this moment on, children have no further contact with their birth families. Sometimes, in the worst case scenario, parents cannot legally adopt the child and maintain a foster family status. In this case, the child transits between two families for life.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 62 LG adoptive parents (Table 1): 26 from France (12 gay couples, 1 lesbian couple), 14 from Belgium (7 gay couples), and 22 from Spain (4 gay couples, 7 lesbian couples). Participants' ages ranged from 33 to 56 (mean age = 44.5) years, with children aged between 3 and 18 (mean age = 10.5) years. The participants were recruited via adoption agencies and LGBT associations that sent an invitation letter to potential participants fitting the study's criteria. As explained in the introduction, for the participants in this research, the roads to form an adopted family were variegated and different according to the legal barriers imposed by each country of residence (Table 1). All Belgian couples were married and adopted their children through domestic full joint adoption. All French participants were involved in a couple relationship, but they had to adopt internationally as “single parents” due to the fact that the law prohibited adoption for the LG community before 2013. Most French couples participating in this study sealed their union by a contractual form of civil union (1 couple) or by marriage (8 couples) after the approval of the law that allowed marriage and adoption for LG people in 2013. In this case, the “social parents” adopted legally the child through a step-child adoption. The remaining 4 couples continued to live together without legal recognition of their union. Among the Spanish participants, 8 couples were married, and 3 lived together without legal constraints. Two couples adopted their child jointly through domestic adoption after an initial phase as a foster family, two couples were permanent foster families waiting to adopt their children officially, and seven couples chose to adopt their children via international adoption as single parents. Only three couples completed an adoption by recognizing the social parent as a legal parent. The remaining four couple preferred to not legalize the status of the social parent in order to avoid eventual legal repercussions with the child's country of origin.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics.

	Parents’ gender and age	Relational status	N adopted children	Child's gender and age	Child's age (at adoption)	Type of adoption	Child's country of origin	Country of residence
FAM 1	M+M (38 and 37)	A*	2 (siblings)	M (3.6 y ) M (3.6 y)	1.5 y	1*	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 2	M+M (40 and 38)	A	1	M ( 3.3 y)	3 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 3	M+M (33 and 38 )	A	1	M (4.5 y)	3 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 4	M+M (34 and 38 )	A	1	M (3.6 y)	5 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 5	M+M (40 and 45)	A	1	M (3 y)	4 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 6	M+M (50 and 38)	A	1	F (7 y)	2 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 7	M+M (39 and 41)	A	1	M (5 y)	2 mo	1	Belgium	Belgium
FAM 8	M+M (44 and 40)	B*	1	M (10.6 y)	4y	2*	Haïti	France
FAM 9	M+M (41 and 48)	B	2	M (7.6 y) F (3 y)	6 mo 1.5 y	2	Ivory Coast	France
FAM 10	M+M (41 and 43)	C*	2	M (3. 6 y) M (4. 6 y )	2. 6 y 11 mo	2	South Africa	France
FAM 11	M+M (43 and 45)	B	2	M (8 y) F (3.6 y)	3 y 3 y	2	Haïti Central African Republic	France
FAM 12	M+M (38 and 36)	A	2	M (6.6 y ) M (3 y )	1.6 y 3 mo	2	Guinée	France
FAM 13	F+F (48 and 44)	A	2	M (8 y ) M (5. 6 y)	2 y 2 y	2	Haïti Guinea	France
FAM 14	M+M (39 and 35)	A	1	M (8 y)	5. 6 y	2	South Africa	France
FAM 15	M+M (48 and 39)	B	1	F (7 y )	3. 1 y	2	Haitii	France
FAM 16	M+M (45 and 47)	A	3 (siblings)	F (11 y) F (13 y) M (14 y)	7 y 9 y 10 y	2	Brasil	France
FAM 17	M+M (41 and 39)	A	1	M (10. 4y )	3. 6 y	2	Haïti	France
FAM 18	M+M (56 and 54)	A	1	M (18 y)	2mo	2	Ivory Coast	France
FAM 19	M+M (45 and 37)	A	1	M (5 y)	2 y	2	Guinea	France
FAM 20	M+M (42 and 47)	A	1	M (8. 6 y)	2.6 y	2	Haïti	France
FAM 21	M+M (51 and 52)	A	1	M (13y )	4 y	3 *	Spain	Spain
FAM 22	M+M (33 and 44)	A	2	M (3 y) M (5 y)	1 y 3 y	4*	Spain	Spain
FAM 23	F+F (49 and 41)	B	1	F (9 y)	1.5 y	2	Ethiopia	Spain
FAM 24	F+F (54 and 44)	A	1	M (8)	1.4 y	3	Spain	Spain
FAM 25	M+M (43 and 43)	A	2	M (11 y) M (5.5y)	4 y 4.6 y	4	Spain	Spain
FAM 26	F+F (48 and 53)	A	1	M (8 y)	4 y	2	Honduras	Spain
FAM 27	F+F (47 and 47)	A	2	M (18 y) M ( 12 y)	6 y 4 .6 y	2	Brazil Ethiopia	Spain
FAM 28	F+F (46 and 39)	B	2	M (4 y) M (3 y)	1 y 4 mo	2	Mali Spain	Spain
29	F+F (47 and 44)	B	2	M (6 y) M (3 y)	2 .4 y 5 mo	2	Spain	Spain
FAM 30	F+F (47 and 48)	A	1	F (16 y )	11 y	2	Brazil	Spain
FAM 31	M+M (43 and 44)	A	1	M (13 y)	2 y	2	Russia	Spain

Note. = _______.

Types of adoption: 1 = National full joint adoption; 2 = International single parent adoption (being in couple); 3 = National full joint adoption (after a period as foster family); 4 = Permanent Foster family waiting to adopt officially their child.

Interviews

All interviews were video-recorded and took place in person. All families were assessed at home by the principal investigator. The participation of both parents was required at the same time. Interviews lasted between 1.5 and 2.5 hours, depending on the amount of information provided by the participants. Participation was voluntary, and no compensation was offered for it. The interviews were constructed to study the challenges encountered by same-sex couples in a retrospective way, considering two key elements of the adoptive path: the decision making (question 1) and the adoption process (question 2). Given our interest in the challenges experienced as LG adoptive parents, we specifically probed for the difficulties encountered by parents across their experiences. Specifically, the results presented in this article derived from the following open-ended questions:

1)	What was the decision making to adopt a child like? (Probes: What have been the main challenges encountered during the decision making? What were your feelings and thoughts in that moment?)
2)	What was the adoption process like? (Probes: What aspects of the process have been the most difficult ones? How did you feel with your agency? Did you experience any form of discrimination because of your sexual orientation?)

Data analysis

All video-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach in order to elicit key themes across the data. Data analysis consisted of three phases. In a first step, all data were coded by the authors, following the model proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006): (a) data familiarization, (b) generating initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) producing a report. This first analysis allowed us to define a coding scheme in relation to the most significant and frequent codes sorted by the data. The second phase consisted of a reliability test. The test was performed to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. In this phase, a research group of seven trained coders categorized all data according to the coding scheme provided by the main researchers. Each coder was involved in a process of independent analysis of the same data in order to verify the effectiveness and the accuracy of the coding scheme. In a third step, all codes and themes were reviewed and discussed to reach consensus among coders. This last discussion allowed the researchers to refine, name, and specify the final themes that emerged from the analysis.

Results

All results are discussed in relation to the themes identified from the interviews. Two main sets of results are presented hereafter. First, we will analyze the self-doubts and emotional conflicts that LG people experienced in making the choice to become adoptive parents. Second, we will examine the stressors and the challenges that LG adoptive parents encountered during the adoption procedure. Macro themes and sub themes will be described and illustrated with specific verbatim examples, and the issues will be discussed.

Deciding to adopt: Self-doubts and emotional conflicts

Almost all the participants in this research (94%) reported that when they took their first steps toward their parenthood project, they were confronted with many concerns and doubts related to introjected heteronormative assumptions about parenting. Parents explained that before deciding to adopt their child, they discussed at great length and deeply questioned themselves about the implications of their choice. Three main self-doubts and emotional conflicts emerged from the interviews: concerns about the child's well-being, guilty feelings, and the need to overcome the impossibility of being parents as LG people. These three sets of feelings experienced by participants on the adoption path will be analyzed below.

Concerns about the child's well-being in a same-sex-headed family

Many participants (88% of gay men and 65% of lesbians) reported that one of the first questions they asked themselves was whether their family structure could have a negative impact on the child's well-being. For example, Guy,² a 41-year-old French man, described the concerns he had before he adopted his child:

“We wondered if it would be good for a child to have two dads … deep down, I kept believing that it would be better for him/her to grow in a more typical and traditional family with a mother and a father …”

Furthermore, the majority of the participants (97% of gay men and 95% of lesbians) reported that their biggest concern was the possibility that their children would be discriminated against by their schoolmates due to their family structure. Such participants explained that if the doubts about children's well-being in a same-sex family progressively faded away, society's gaze and the fear of discrimination continued to float around their minds and influence their decision.

As stated by Cristophe, a 45-year-old French father:

“We were wondering if our child would be discriminated against at school … we knew that it would be an unusual situation: an adopted child, with two fathers and also Black … we didn't know how he would have been perceived, we worried a lot about eventual forms of racism and homophobia…”

Many parents (91% of gay men and 87% of lesbians) also reported that they feared that their child could be affected or influenced by the negative stereotypes toward homosexuality and same-sex parenting, experiencing a feeling of being “different” and part of an illegitimate family. Laura, a 48-year-old Spanish lesbian mother, explained:

“What worried us the most was the idea that our child could feel strange, different … we feared that he could be affected by social stigma … we told ourselves that even if we had been attentive, we never know what could happen outside, we are not there with him at all times …”

For many participants (45% of gay men and 30% of lesbians), such issues were also accompanied by concerns directly linked to the child's perception, in particular whether the child would feel shocked discovering that he/she was adopted by LG parents. These participants explained that they worried that their children could have a negative perception of same-sex parenting and, consequently, reject them as parents. As stated by Pablo, a 43-year-old Spanish father:

“A part of me kept thinking that having two gay parents would have been shocking for an adopted child … I was afraid he would not accept our family.”

Guilty feelings: “Do we determine a lack in the child's life?”

An important theme that emerged regarded guilty feelings connected to the children's well-being in a same-sex parenting context. When deciding to adopt a child, many gay parents (87%) and some lesbians (33%) experienced guilty feelings due to the impossibility of offering a mother or a father to their child, thus determining a lack in their life indirectly. These parents wondered about the impact of such an absence in their child's life. For example, Vincent, a 41-year-old French participant, outlined the main points of the debate he had with his husband Anthony, 39 years old, on this topic:

“We discussed a lot about the absence of a mum in our family … we thought that our kid would have felt sad about not having a mother in his adoptive family … we were wondering if it was fair for the child, if we had the right to do it or if it was a selfish act on our part … we asked what effect this maternal absence would have on our child … we felt guilty, responsible for adding this lack in his life …”

Here Vincent and Anthony identified guilty feelings connected to a low level of legitimacy as same-sex parents as well as to gender-role traditionalism (Borrillo, 2000; Davies, 2004). The emotional pitch of their narration suggests that this kind of questioning has been a key issue in their decision to pursue the adoption.

Some lesbian participants expressed similar reflections concerning the absence of a paternal figure. Anna, a 47-year-old Spanish mother, explained:

“We were worried that if we had a boy, maybe it could have been important for him to have a dad … but finally we thought that we could figure out a solution, we told ourselves that we have a lot of male friends who are available to participate in the kid's education.”

As shown by the tone used by the participants, the concerns regarding the absent parental figure seemed deeply ingrained as well as a source of pain among gay men, whereas they seemed to be less important to lesbians. In addition, some participants (22% of gay men and 17% of lesbians) spoke about a guilty feeling due to the fact that they felt responsible for causing additional difficulties in the life of a child already marked by difficult life circumstances. Didier, a 46-year-old French father, explained:

“We didn't want him to feel different, part of a strange family … we felt guilty [imagining adding] one more issue in his life, considering that he has already lived a lot of adverse life circumstances.”

Overcoming the impossibility to be parents as LG people

According to narratives, one of the greatest challenges for same-sex adoptive parents consisted of overcoming stereotypes about the incompatibility between homosexuality and parenthood. It was observed that 95% of the gay fathers and 81% of the lesbian mothers in the sample reported experiencing a “grieving process” for parenthood aspirations because they perceived themselves as obliged to make a choice between being homosexual and being parents.

Ricardo, a 43-year-old Spanish father, explained:

“For me being gay meant giving up the possibility of having children. When I came out, I directly thought that I would not become a parent in my future because I was gay and it was incompatible with the project of having children … it was like a grieving process to me.”

Beatrice, aged 44 and from France, also described her difficulty reconciling her lesbian identity with her desire to have children.

“For me, I was lesbian and it meant that I would never have children … it didn't seem just possible. For me, it was hard to authorize myself, to think that it would have been be concretely possible. I feared society's point of view, the reactions of those close to me …”

Here Beatrice experienced a great tension between her spontaneous and deep wish to have a child and the moral weight imposed by society.

According to many participants (76%), overcoming such introjected ideas is the necessary condition to take the adoption journey and to feel legitimate as LG parents. Victor, aged 33 and from Belgium, talked about his long path to overcoming the struggles he faced to feel comfortable in his parenting project:

Deep down, I was still not sure that it was an acceptable thing to be gay and to adopt a child. … There was like a little voice inside me telling that it was a too ambitious project. I had to induct myself into a huge psychological pattern. I told myself: OK, you are gay, but it does not mean that you can't be a good father … I needed to accept, to be legitimate from the others, but also and mainly, to legitimate myself as a future gay father … it took a long time. I think that if you want to have some chances to adopt, it is necessary to take a step forward … to say: OK I can and I will do it … because the road is very long and complicated and you need to be confident.

Here Victor described the effects of the internalized social stigma (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009), which can be seen as a kind of “internal saboteur” that must be fought in order to realize the parenting aspiration.

Barriers and challenges in the adoption procedure

In addition to the challenges and the emotional uncertainties experienced at a personal level as prospective adoptive parents, participants were also confronted with many institutional obstacles in the adoption procedure. The extent of the stressors and challenges encountered during the adoption process by the participants in this study were context-specific. Indeed, the adoption process experience has been very different for participants according to the legal barriers imposed by their country of residence. Therefore, we will analyze the main stressors encountered by adoptive parents during the adoption procedure, differentiating them according to the adoption procedure type (full joint adoption vs. adoption as a single parent even being in a couple).

Established “gay quota”

All Belgian adoptive parents (100%) who accomplished a joint adoption reported that social workers tried to discourage them by showing statistics portraying a limited number of successful same-sex adoption processes. Based on participants' reports, these agencies seemed to have “a gay quota,” declaring only to allow a certain number of same-sex couples per year to adopt. Such a criterion negatively impacted the motivation and the self-confidence of the participants, who felt powerless and impotent at facing a poor chance of success. For example, Jacob, aged 37 and from Belgium, considered giving up the adoption procedure because it seemed too complex and almost impossible. He pointed out:

At that time, there was a kind of official quota, which was 25 adoptions per year. No more than 4 out of 25 were same-sex couples … and there were 3 couples who had already started before us. They made it very clear: Don't delude yourself! The percentage of LG adoptions is very low … so you must be aware that this is a long and difficult route, and there are very little chances of success.

According to the participants, the “official” reason agencies showed such statistics was to give truthful information and avoid arousing unrealistic expectations among candidates. However, behind this claim, all participants glimpsed/discerned a homophobic motivation, meant to control the number of same-sex adoptions.

Jilles, a 38-year-old father living in Belgium, talked about his experience in which deception met bitterness:

They justified this choice by indicating that it was intended to ensure the transparency, to better prepare us for what was coming, but I think there is something unwholesome in this discourse. This is equivalent to saying: We accept 20% of Black people, 80% of White ones … it's a great form of discrimination … for me it was disgusting …

Discrimination at the discretion of children's birth families

The decision-making power of the birth families was perceived by participants as one of the most discriminating aspects in the process. All Belgian adoptive parents (100%) reported that they were warned by adoption agencies that birth families have the right to choose what kind of family will adopt their child and could take into account the sexual orientation of adoptive candidates. Based on participants' reports, this discretion over the choice of adoptive parents often generated discrimination by the birth families of the children, who, in most cases, were less likely to choose non-heterosexual couples. Two main reasons were given by adoption agencies as justifications of this choice. First, in their opinion, it was essential to ensure continuity between the birth and adoptive families to help the child develop an integrated sense of self. Second, communicating such information to candidates had the positive purpose of adjusting their expectations and developing a realistic time line. Despite these explanations, all participants (100%) reported excessive and undue influence of the biological parents. The risk of being rejected on the basis of their sexual orientation was unfair in the eyes of these parents, who expressed feelings of hopelessness and impotent rage. Vincent, a 38-year-old father from Belgium, said:

“We don't understand why … if we are married and we are a family. … Why are birth parents allowed to discriminate [against] us because of our sexual orientation? This is very discriminating …”

Other participants also complained about this form of discrimination, which made them feel undesirable and illegitimate in their parental aspirations. Charles, a 40-year-old Belgian father, voiced his feelings of discrimination and hopelessness connected to this topic:

“We felt hopeless in that moment, we knew that our profile will not have been accepted in most of the cases … it was so hard, it conveyed a very negative image of ourselves … as undesirable, deviant.”

The weight of lies: Being obliged to hide themselves in order to adopt

All French adoptive parents (100%) and most Spanish ones (91%) reported a greater range of stressors due to the fact that they could not complete the adoption process as an official couple. Living in a country that had yet to allow same-sex couple adoption meant that the abovementioned parents were faced with a choice: starting the adoption process by lying about their homosexuality and their relationship or giving up their parental project. Being obliged to lie, to hide their homosexuality and their marital life, and to live in constant fear of being unmasked have been found to be the greatest challenges during the adoption procedure for the majority of the participants who adopted as legal parents. For example, Charles, aged 48 and from France, adopted a child from Haiti as a single parent. Here he expressed how this procedure proved stressful to him:

“I had to hide an essential part of myself … being suspected like a criminal … for me, it was very hard telling nonsense, saying that I was a single man, acting like a heterosexual man … and almost being suspected of pedophilia …”

Some participants (19%) who had already adopted at least one child and were pursuing another adoption were confronted with a yet another challenge. During the home study, not only did they have to lie about their sexual orientation but they also had to involve their child in the “strategy of filtration” regarding the family identity. For example, Natasha, aged 46 and from Spain, adopted two children (Antonio and Lucas) with her partner Jenny by going through the international adoption procedure as a single mother. Even if Jenny did not legally exist, she was completely implicated in the children's lives. When Natasha was pursuing the second adoption, Antonio was 3 years old. Thus, during the second home study, the most challenging aspect for this couple was to prevent Antonio from revealing the truth to social workers. Here Natasha reported her uncomfortable feelings in such a difficult situation:

“When social workers came home, Antonio was already here and I didn't know how to handle such a situation. I couldn't tell him to lie, I couldn't explain to him: We are a normal family, but those people don't understand it and so we have to lie … and there was always great tension! I only hoped that Antonio didn't say anything to the social workers: ‘I have two mums!’”

Although it was only a means to an end, Natasha reported a high level of stress because of her child's involvement in lying and feared conveying a negative or illegitimate image of their family to him.

Many parents (64% of gay men and 61% of lesbians) also spoke of an intense worry that their child may feel betrayed by discovering the existence of two same-sex parents instead of one. These parents were wondering how their children could react to the news of being adopted by a same-sex couple, whereas they expected and were prepared by social workers in their country to join a single-parent family. Stephan, aged 41 and from France, was very concerned by this aspect. Before the official adoption of his 8-year-old child from Haiti, he did not mention the existence of his partner when he talked with the child. In such circumstances, Stephan experienced a great tension between his desire for transparency and loyalty and the need to lie imposed by the sociolegal context. He stated:

“I was afraid that he would feel betrayed, that he would consider that we lied given that he was not prepared before. … We didn't want to start our family story with a lie.”

Another issue emerged from the interviews regarding the necessity to lie to the children's birth families. Indeed, some French and Spanish participants (14%) met the biological family of the child in person in their country. They had to pose as single parents and felt guilty about lying. In addition, these parents feared the possibility that the child might want to visit his/her country of origin. In this case, the biological parents could find out the truth and create legal problems. For example, Remon, a 39-year-old French parent, met his son's birth family in Africa. During their meeting, he had to omit information about his sexual orientation and his marital life in Europe. He stated:

“I felt guilty because I met them, I saw their faces … I talked to them … and it was very hard for me, because they gave me the precious gift of being a parent, but I had to lie … and I am afraid of what could happen if one day they found out the truth.”

Here Remon identified the tension between the gratitude toward his son's birth parents and the necessity to lie in order to accomplish their parenthood project. His feelings were a mix of guilt and fear.

The “invisibility” of the social parent

On the other hand, social parents also encounter significant challenges during the adoption process. Constrained to stay out of sight, the majority of social parents (91% of gay men and 92% of lesbians) experienced a sense of loneliness by being “put aside” throughout the process, obliged to watch and follow their partner from a distance. These parents had to hide themselves during the adoption procedure in order to avoid any suspicions, and they could not actively participate in the preparation process. Jenny, a 41-year-old Spanish “social mother,” reported feeling overshadowed and invisible during the home study:

“When social workers [came] into our house, I had to disappear or appear as the housekeeper or the babysitter … at home, we didn't keep photos of ourselves together, we only had Nadia's photos because she is the legal mother and sometimes I felt a little bit invisible.”

In addition, many participants (82% of gay men and 85% of lesbians) reported that this procedure had a negative impact on their conjugal life. Antoine, a 48-year-old French “social father,” stated:

“It was very difficult, because in that moment we didn't share the same experience, the same reality: He was completely involved in the adoption project, while I was in the shadow … and this caused conflicts and put distance between us.”

For some social parents (44% of gay men and 39% of lesbians), the idea of not having a legal bond with the adopted child engendered insecurity together with a feeling of being a “second-class parent.” For example, Julia, a 47-year-old mother from Spain, was the “social” mother of two boys aged 6 and 3 years. Even if she shared the same desire to adopt a child with her partner Natasha, she was not legally involved in the adoption procedure. She stated:

“As I don't have legal ties with them, I always think: ‘Can I do this? Or that?’ … I pick up the kids after school or I take them to the gym, but … I don't know, I don't really feel to be their mum like Natasha.”

Here Julia expressed her feelings of “illegitimacy” as a social adoptive parent. Her experience shows how the lack of legal ties could impact her relationship with the children.

Finally, according to the majority of the interviewed social parents (84% of gay men and 77% of lesbians), invisibility at a legal level also reflected on relationships with extended families. According to the participants' reports, they often did not feel considered as “parents” by their in-laws at the same level as their partner. Pedro, a 39-year-old social parent from Spain, experienced feelings of anonymity in the eyes of his husband's family of origin:

“They don't consider me as a father, at the same level as him … and they consider themselves as the real grandparents, whereas my parents aren't … there is a great disparity between our families, and I think it depends a lot on this ambiguous legal status during the adoption procedure.”

Pedro voiced the relational ambiguity (Green & Mitchell, 2008) linked to his lack of legal rights regarding the child and the challenge of maintaining family ties in such a context.

Discussion

This study has been the first cross-national research using qualitative methods as a way to explore the experiences of same-sex adoptive families living in Europe. Results contribute to our knowledge and understanding toward the specific challenges experienced by sexual minorities across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Our analysis has focused on two main aspects. First, it examined the personal self-doubts and emotional conflicts that LG people may experience when choosing to adopt a child; second, it shed light on the specific sociolegal barriers they have to deal with in order to realize their parental project, according to their country of residence. Concerning the first point, our research showed that LG people in this sample decided to adopt after taking a long journey characterized by self-doubt.

Participants' reports provide compelling evidence that heteronormative assumptions about family (D'Amore et al., 2013) could negatively impact same-sex couples during decision making. Indeed, as shown by participants' reports, such introjected ideas could represent a deterrent in pursuing adoption and slow down participants' parenting project. Consistent with previous research (Goldberg, 2012; Gross, 2012), many parents experienced a kind of “grieving process” for their parenting aspirations because they were unable to conciliate their wish to become parents with their homosexual identity. Furthermore, they reported being confronted with a long and deep reflection on the impact their family structure may have on their prospective children. For many parents, such reflections were also characterized by guilty feelings connected to the idea of adding a supplementary loss and complicating the life of a child already marked by abandonment and difficulties. Our analyses showed that gay men in the sample were more affected by heteronormative ideas of family than lesbians and that they dealt with more challenges in forming a “procreative consciousness” (Berkowitz & Marsiglio 2007). More precisely, a high percentage of gay fathers voiced guilty feelings and concerns connected to the lack of a maternal figure in their prospective child's life, whereas a low percentage of lesbian participants reported similar feelings toward the absence of a paternal figure. In line with previous studies, these findings suggest that gay men experience more self-doubt and questioning during decision making on the route to parenthood compared to lesbian women (Berkowitz & Marsiglio, 2007; Gianino, 2008). Gay fathers in the sample seemed to feel less legitimate than lesbians in their parental project, and this reflects the general social attitude considering male homosexuality as less acceptable than female homosexuality (Costa & Davies, 2012; Steffens, 2005; Steffens, Jonas, & Denger, 2014). In particular, men in the sample seem to be greatly influenced by gender role traditionalism (Borrillo, 2000; Davies, 2004), in which they consider the maternal figure indispensable for the development of children and consequently their family structure as deficient. This finding confirms the evidence that gay men are more likely to be influenced by traditional views of gender roles than women (Costa & Davies, 2012) as well as the fact that anti-gay attitudes are constitutive elements of the masculine identity (Borrillo, 2000). In addition, one of the most important concerns reported both by lesbians and gay men in the sample regarded social attitudes about same-sex parenting and the negative image society could convey to their children. The majority of participants, regardless of their gender, were deeply worried that their prospective child could be discriminated against in the social context. This research suggests that these parents, as a result of minority stress (Green, 2008; Meyer, 2003) and internalized heterosexism (Herek et al., 2009), conceive of their sexual minority status as problematic for the development of their children.

According to the developmental systems approach (Lerner et al., 2011), we hypothesized that the social context in which families live played an important role in structuring such ideas and feelings. We can conclude that our results confirmed this hypothesis. Indeed, data were collected between 2014 and 2016, a bit after the massive wave of demonstrations in response to the French bill for “marriage for all.” In the sociopolitical climate of that historic moment, the rights of LGBT people attracted great media interest, prompting controversial debates of public opinion in many European countries. It is easy to imagine that these families have been affected by the events in question, which have contributed to weakening them and increasing their feelings of internalized homophobia.

Concerning the second goal of our analysis, our study sheds light on the specific institutional roadblocks that LG parents, as a part of a sexual minority, encounter during the adoption procedure. As participants' reports illustrated, the experiences of LG adoptive parents are quite varied in the European context. The intensity of the stressors faced during the adoption process is context-specific and largely depends on the legal barriers imposed by the countries in which these families live. In line with previous studies (Goldberg, 2012; Goldberg et al., 2007), the possibility to adopt as a couple through a legal procedure that includes and recognizes both partners as prospective adoptive parents has been found to determine not only a greater level of well-being but also a better implication and preparation of the parents. Conversely, going through the adoption process as a single parent by lying about the family identity was revealed to have negative impacts on a personal level, on the married life, and on the relationship with the child and with the extended family. Considering the long lead times in the adoption process, the repercussions of such a procedure can last for a long period of time and continue to influence the family's relationship and well-being even after the adoption procedure has been completed.

Limitations

This research has several limitations. First of all, despite the contribution of our study, we have to point out that the use of qualitative interviewing can lead to self-report bias as well as interpretive bias. Second, our study did not include single lesbians and gay men. Future research should investigate the similarities and differences between the experiences of single LG adoptive parents and those of LG couples who adopt as single parents because of legal barriers. Third, our study did not include a comparison group to compare the experiences of LG adoptive parents with those of heterosexual adoptive parents. Thus, the relationship between sexual orientation and adoption challenges only reflects the perception of the participants in this study and limits our ability to establish causal links between such variables. Besides, as all the participants in this study were Caucasian, this research did not address how race issues may influence LG adoptive parents' experiences throughout the adoption journey. Black LG adoptive parents may experience additional stressors due to homophobia and racism. Furthermore, we decided to begin our investigation in three European countries (Belgium, France, and Spain), which could represent a strength of our research but also a limitation because of the large number of variables implicated (culture, legal barriers, etc.). Finally, it would be very important to distinguish the specific challenges faced by the parents who experience a period as a foster family before adopting their child, with particular reference to the double family belonging of the children.

Implications and conclusions

This research makes a significant contribution, as it explores the experiences of the first generation of same-sex adoptive couples living in Europe; it includes both gay men and lesbians, comparing their experiences; and it also examines the impact of the specific sociopolitical context of three different European countries in which the participants lived.

In conclusion, the findings of this study have borne a fairly consistent message: Despite the increasingly open legislative measures in Europe, same-sex couples who want to adopt still have to face unique stressors and roadblocks connected to their minority status. This may involve important negative consequences on their psychological well-being, on their preparation to adopt, and on their perceived parental competence. These findings suggest that much remains to be accomplished in order to fight discrimination and ensure equal treatment and opportunities for LG people who want to adopt. Promoting transparency in the adoption practice and increasing awareness, and training among social actors could be the first steps in this direction. Policy makers, adoption agencies, social workers, and clinicians should learn from the experiences of LG adoptive parents presented in this article. Thus, this research has great social impact with the potential to stimulate discussion and pave the way for improvements in the adoption experience of these new families whose number is increasing in Europe. We hope that future research will extend these results by examining the experience of same-sex adoptive families living in other European countries. Indeed, despite the contributions of this pioneer study, further research is necessary in order to increase and consolidate scientific knowledge on this topic. Providing a better understanding of the issues experienced by LG adoptive families is important to promote adoption practices that take their specific needs into account. This seems crucial not only in the interest of the prospective adoptive parents but also in the best interest of the adopted children (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001), who could be negatively affected by the discrimination and by the legal obstacles that their parents still encounter in our society.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the families who took part in this study, as well as the adoption agencies (ONE Adoption, Vivre en Famille) and the LGBT associations (Homoparentalité, APGL, Galehi) for their contribution to this research. They also want to thank Martine Gross (CNRS) and Marta Aparicio Garcia (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) for their precious cooperation and guidance. Thanks are also due to the Belgian National Research Foundation (F.R.S.-FNRS) for having funded this study via a doctoral fellowship awarded to the first author of this paper.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the F.R.S.-FNRS Fund for Scientific Research.

Notes

1. LOI n ° 2013-404 du 17 mai 2013 ouvrant le mariage aux couples de personnes de même sexe.

2. Whenever case examples are used, all identifying information has been altered to protect the confidentiality of the individual.