Edited by: Yvette Renee Harris, Miami University, United States
Reviewed by: Nicola Carone, La Sapienza University of Rome, Italy; Anne Caroline Wheeler, RTI International, United States; Olga Alicia Carbonell, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia
This article was submitted to Developmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The aim of this research was to explore the elements that configure the quality of care among three Mexican same-sex planned families: two female-parented families (through donor insemination) and a male-parented one (through adoption). The first family consisted of two mothers and a 3-year-old daughter; the second one had two mothers and a 1.5-year-old set of boy twins and the third family consisted of two fathers and a 2-year-old girl. It was assumed that Ainsworth’s notions of quality of care organization are useful in order to understand caregiver–child attachment relationships, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. A collective case study was selected due to the fact that these families shared their “unconventionality” (i.e., parents were not heterosexual) and the fact that they were planned, but each one constituted a particular case with a unique configuration. Four trained independent observers used the q-sort methodology (Maternal Behavior Q-Sort and Attachment Q-Sort) to describe parents’ and children’s behavior, respectively. The findings showed that parents were highly sensitive and all children used them as a secure base. To provide an in-depth examination of which elements configure the quality of care, a semi-structured interview with each parent was carried out. Through a thematic analysis, an over-arching theme named
In 2003, Mexico’s Federal Law to prevent and eliminate various kinds of discrimination was enacted, facilitating the approval of the Civil Union Act in Mexico City in 2006. These legislative acts paved the conditions for both the 2009’ legalization of same-sex marriage and the possibility of child adoption among same-sex couples, being enforced the following year. Mexico City was the second megalopolis in Latin America to do so after Buenos Aires, Argentina (
According to
Since 2010, same-sex couples are able to legally adopt children in Mexico City. New planned family configurations open up new possibilities to carry out naturalistic observations of cild–caregiver exchanges since early childhood (
Throughout the meticulous examination of her own narrative records, describing different child–caregiver interactive behaviors, Mary Ainsworth identified the sensitivity construct (
Ainsworth’s insights about caregiving, quality of care, and methodology are a baseline for research into the caregivers’ contribution to their relationships with children (
Mary Ainsworth concluded that over time, what matters the most, is the organization and patterning of parental behavior when looking for qualitative differences in child–caregiver attachment relationships (
The relational focus of this construct was underlined by
“Far from a set of fixed attributes that (caregivers) may display on all occasions, specific (parental) sensitive behavior seems tailored to the particular situation and condition of the child” (
Summarizing, Ainsworth’s notions regarding
In a meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of 564 same-sex and 641 heterosexual parents, the mean age of children represented in the studies was 10.4 years with a range of 5–24 years (
Of the studies located in the latter meta-analysis,
Comparative studies were necessary to demonstrate that the psychosocial development of children raised by same-sex parents were not negatively affected by their parents’ sexual orientation, and that LG people were as capable at parenting and child caring as heterosexual couples (
This research utilized a collective case study (
Parents were contacted through a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) non-governmental organization (NGO)
Demographic characteristics.
Parents |
Child | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mother/Father | Age | Education | Occupation | Relationship length | |
Lilia | 47 | Bachelor | Yoga teacher and radio newscaster | 6 years | Julia |
Flor∗ | 41 | Postgraduate | Yoga teacher and documentary film editor | 36 months | |
Gabriel and Paulo | |||||
Gabriela∗ | 37 | Postgraduate | Self-employed | 10 years | |
Eugenia | 30 | Bachelor | Sales | 19 months | |
Noe∗∗ | 30 | Bachelor | Medical representative | 2 years | Karina |
Gerardo∗∗ | 35 | Postgraduate | Physician | 27 months |
After initial contact with the couples, each parent was individually observed and videotaped interacting at home with his or her child over a period of 2 h, as previous Ibero-American studies have endorsed (e.g.,
Ethical approval for this study was obtained by the first and second author’s university Ethics Committee. Parents were informed that their participation in this study was confidential and provided both verbal and written consent before their participation. Parents’ names presented in this study are pseudonymous, and their identities are anonymous. All performed procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Since the AQS and the MBQS share the same methodology, it is crucial to understand this research method. The Q-sort methodology features a number of structural and procedural elements that distinguish it from more traditional approaches and make it more apt to produce a comprehensive and meaningful description of the observed interaction (
The observers who collected the data were trained in the use of both Q-sorts (AQS and MBQS separately). Training for each Q-sort consisted of first reading and discussing the meaning of the 90 items. This was followed by three to five practice observations and q-descriptions of parental (MBQS) and child behavior (AQS) during videotaped child–mother interactions at home/park. Trainee observers’ descriptions were compared to those of an expert; an observer was considered trained when she or he obtained an inter-observer reliability with an expert (i.e., correlation corrected for number of observers using the Spearman–Brown formula) of at least 0.80 in three practice observations.
The MBQS (
Children behavior during interactions with their parents was described using the AQS (
To provide an in-depth examination of the elements that configure the quality of care, semi-structured interviews (
The most common measure associated with the q-sort methodology is the Pearson’s
Qualitative data (i.e., transcripts of interviews) regarding quality of care were analyzed using Thematic Analysis (
It was assumed that the analysis of similarities and differences between each family would enable a better understanding of the quality of care organization in same-sex planned families. The first part of the results focuses on the six subthemes that were identified for the three participant planned families. Afterward, the narrative (
The mean score for the MBQS was 0.74 (see Table
Sensitivity and security.
Parent | Child | Sensitivity (MBQS) | Security (AQS) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall sample | |||||
0.74 (0.25) | 0.58 (0.19) | ||||
Range | 0.67–0.83 | 0.35–0.73 | |||
Lilia | Julia | 0.83 | 0.73 | ||
Flor | 0.79 | 0.66 | |||
Gabriela | Gabriel and | Gabriel | Paulo | Gabriel | Paulo |
Eugenia | Paulo | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.64 |
0.70 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.57 | ||
Noe | Karina | 0.73 | 0.35 | ||
Gerardo | 0.77 | 0.49 |
Transcripts were coded without trying to fit into a pre-existing coding frame or analytic preconceptions (i.e., data-driven). On average, 438 inclusive and comprehensive codes were generated for each transcript (570 for Noe; 501 for Gerardo; 326 for Lilia; 334 for Flor; 446 for Gabriela and 452 for Eugenia). Eighteen internally coherent, consistent and distinctive themes were identified. Themes were named and defined by the first, second, third and fourth authors; all relevant extract for each theme were collated and themes were checked against each other and with the original data set. One theme, labeled as
Quality of care subthemes.
Subtheme | Definition | Lilia and Flor | Gabriela and Eugenia | Noe and Gerardo |
---|---|---|---|---|
Creating an affective environment | Providing a sense of love and protection to the child through physical contact and verbal expression and/or during play, daily routines and learning situations | Storytelling to the girl about her story |
Pampering the children with food and play |
Constantly telling Karina that they love her |
Being available | Organizing schedules in order to be present and accessible to their children | Involving and giving undivided attention during playtime | Organizing flexible schedules for the children’s benefits | Seeking for free time in order to be with her |
Acknowledging and expressing emotions | Becoming aware of their own emotions and the importance of teaching their children how to identify them | Recognizing when one is tired |
Avoiding yelling at the twins so they do not get scared Setting limits when the boys hit each other | Balancing annoyance and irritation toward tantrums vs. coherent consequences (“time out”) |
Perceiving, interpreting and responding adequately to the child’s real self | Remaining attentive to signals and interpreting the child’s negative behaviors in a flexible way in order to respond satisfactorily | Conceptualizing crying as something necessary |
Differentiating perceptions and making adjustments with Paulo and Gabriel |
Testing hypotheses to get to the cause of the girl’s annoyance |
Taking the child’s perspective into account | Recognizing and respecting the differences between the children and recognizing their worth for their own rights | Explaining the rules |
Making attributions and explanations for the twins, “even when they do not speak yet” |
Fostering autonomy by assigning tasks and responsibilities that are aligned with her age |
Agreeing on roles and dividing the tasks | Consenting and organizing to take differentiated roles between the couple and for the upbringing duties along with a support network | Flor taking on most of the upbringing activities | Involving in different activities (driving them to school, shower time, putting them to bed) even though Eugenia works business hours | Gerardo playing the role of the family’s main provider |
The first common element was the importance parents bestow upon making their children feel loved and protected, which was expressed through kissing, hugging, pampering, massaging and tickling, as well as by using tender words or explicit verbalizations: “Flor and I told her the story of how we wanted to have a baby, and how we always wanted her, and how when she was born we were so joyful, and we always are” (Lilia). The importance participants placed on enjoying the interactions and communicating what their son/daughter means to them was also noticed, even only with a gaze: “I kiss her a lot, I hug her whenever I find a chance…I feel she gets me more through eye-gazing so I try, when speaking to her, to look her in the eye, laugh with her” (Lilia).
It is through playtime that adults “spoke the language” of the child, and in turn they used their imagination, played roles, and were able to interact more rough-and-tumble with them. Although in this study there is no deeper analysis of the practices and significance of playing, attention is drawn to the fact that playing was not only used as a strategy to divert attention during tantrums, or as something common among children at this age, but above all it was considered as an opportunity to interact, live together and foster the bond.
The positive and affective climate was generated not only during play or learning situations, but also in routines such as the nap. For Gabriela, the nap was of upmost importance, as she said that, when skipped, the twins could get in a bad mood. She also tried to “always have milk that is nice and warm,” as well as to “cook for them what they enjoy.” These expressions indicate how she brought significance and care into daily activities that might otherwise seem routine. Gabriela also described how she “shares all kinds of activities with Paulo and Gabriel on a daily basis,” as she “loves to discover her sons’ behaviors.” These mothers clearly illustrated how the hard work that comes with keeping and having daily routines does not prevent them from enjoying the upbringing process. Summarizing, it seems that among participants the premise was as follows: ‘let’s take advantage of every opportunity to show our love and to turn routine into playtime.’
Having flexible jobs and schedules was a characteristic of almost all participants whose aim was to be present: “be there” for their children both during play and when enforcing rules. Thanks to their support networks, they managed to share and divide tasks, giving priority to the attention they put on their children. Being available involved more than just a matter of organization; it had to do with undivided attention or the quality time allocated to the children:
“If I am playing with her I don’t allow anything to distract me -not using the phone, not doing anything else- as an adult it is very difficult sometimes [but] I feel that being involved with her during playtime is something she values a lot” (Lilia).
Creating an affective environment as well as the availability of the caregivers were neither an instinctive behavior nor a consequence of biological motherhood or fatherhood: participants’ stories revealed that it was a choice and a personal decision, and that once it was made it was taken with responsibility and dedication. Even in cases such as Noe or Lilia, who decided to take on the parental role when their partners had already decided to take it by themselves, it became evident how they “fell in love” with the girls (couples were not living together when both Gerardo decided to adopt Karina, and Flor decided to get pregnant with Julia). Accordingly, attachment bonds were developed and organized over concrete and ordinary situations, which can be described as patterns. The quality of the caregiving relies upon the continuity of the interactions.
Parents were extremely thoughtful and conscious of their own strengths and difficulties about childrearing. They remained alert and vigilant toward their own mood, their couple functioning and any other aspect that they felt could interfere with their family life, as they were aware of how everything may affect the bonding. For instance, when Gabriela got upset and raised her voice, she immediately became conscious of how this impacted the twins (because they made “surprise faces”). So instead of preventing it just for the sake of what should or ought to be, she tried to avoid doing so because she could see Paulo and Gabriel’s reactions: “I don’t like to scare them…I’ve tried to avoid yelling.”
In that sense, they were adults who “got in touch with their emotions”; therefore, they taught their children the importance of doing so. Maybe this is the reason why, in general, they were so physical in showing love and worked hard toward creating caring environments. Thus, they were able to accept to themselves and admit to others (i.e., the interviewer) the emotions related to family upbringing such as annoyance, anger, fatigue, blame, and frustration, which are often culturally and socially denied (especially among mothers).
Parents became emotionally tense when enforcing rules and limits. This was reflected in many situations such as dealing with the annoyance that the daughter provoked when throwing the dish on the floor, while at the same time trying to remain firm about the “time out”; not telling the little girl off about not wanting to go to the bathroom, in order not to make her feel bad, while dealing with the frustration this situation generated; wanting to explain the world to the child, but also feeling so tired or stressed that you want to skip the explanation; finding the balance between wanting to prolong the playtime to see the daughter enjoying herself, but remaining strict about the sleep routine so that she gets enough rest; maintaining the balance between “showing too much love and care, and overcoming challenges or setting boundaries.” These statements were taken from the analysis of individual families and are not fully described in this paper. However, it was decided to include some of them, word for word, so as to exemplify the issue being discussed. The first two statements were made by Gerardo and Noe, while the others were made by Flor and Lilia. Regarding the statement “having to explain” to the child, Lilia admitted that she sometimes felt she did not want to explain anything and just wanted to say “because”! The last statements were made by Eugenia and Gabriela.
Loving the children and being available for them was not a synonym of denying oneself as a person; on the contrary, it allowed parents to acknowledge their own limits and to show their own emotions in order to teach empathy. As Lilia said: “Julia gives me a kiss when I’m upset.” These examples may well explain why, overall, affective behaviors as an over-arching theme was closely related to
Overall, it was important to remain attentive as well as to interpret and respond to the child’s emotions, especially to the negative ones, as they tended to throw the adults off balance. Furthermore, allowing children to express themselves (through crying or tantrums) reflected the parents’ ability to integrate positive and hostile aspects without idealizing their children. Despite this, no parent attributed such behaviors to a personal matter, such as the child’s character or “just because.” This mainly was ascribed to developmental aspects and to the needs that required immediate attention (being hungry, tired or sleepy).
In regard to how to respond to specific behaviors, the overall agreement seemed to be: ‘depends on what triggered them.’ If it concerned overstepping a limit, then the parents were firm about imposing a consequence. On the other hand, if there were causes that justified the child’s being upset, then the parents diverted the infant’s attention, or simply gave the child some space and respected that feeling. As Lilia stated: “we must understand that Julia feels things… and that it’s not personal,” that is why sometimes they let her cry “as long as she needs to, [trying] to cut her some slack.” The following quotation is a clear example of sensitive parenting:
“I try to feel where her crying is coming from, and I sometimes feel that she needs to cry but she needs me to be there too, so I let her cry and try to approach her after some time until I feel she needs comfort and a hug; I try not to be hasty about her calming down, but to try and try physical contact until she welcomes the hug” (Lilia).
The repertoire of sensitive responses from the adults related to the development of the concept of knowing their child or children which was differentiated in the family with twins. These mothers’ reports seemed consistent, as they stated that Gabriel was a dominant and gifted child, and that at the beginning they felt that Paulo was developing more slowly, thus it makes sense that during the observation, Eugenia and Gabriela were more attentive toward the latter. This refers to the overall score in the MBQS which for both mothers was higher for Paulo than it was for Gabriel (see Table
For the parents, remaining well informed helped them to identify what to expect during each developmental stage and realize that all children are different and develop at their own time. For example, Eugenia believed that “it is easier to calm them down now than when they were little, because now they understand better.” The shared concern with Gabriela over “Paulo’s lack of attention” reflected the understanding of how each child developed at a different pace, and elicited a response from the son, as she considered that both sons were attentive and such responses were differentiated. In this regard, it is noteworthy the wide knowledge each participant had about their children. While the adult who spent more time with the infant was the one who gave out more details about the child’s personality, it is evident that good communication existed in order to keep the other parent informed about the child’s doings.
Overall, there was a shared value of respect for the individuality of each children, whom were asked for their opinion on specific situations where they could undertake small decisions, such as combing their hair, getting dressed, deciding what to eat, what book to read, and so on. This shows how the focus was centered on the children, who were perceived as worthy of their own rights. These parents constantly sought the balance between making the children feel good, without being overindulgent by giving in to every whim. They worked day by day on providing space and playful activities without failing to follow the rules and routines, which were established in agreement among the parents; they both respected them and intended for the children to anticipate consequences or understand the aim of certain practices (such as the “time out”).
To take time to explain things to the children indicated that, for the adults, they were worthy of such explanations. For instance, Eugenia explained how she “chatted” with Paulo and Gabriel, stimulating language production, despite the fact that they were too young to speak yet (19 months old), thus treating them as persons capable of having intentions by sharing her day-to-day life with them. It is noteworthy that the limited speaking skills of the twins did not hinder communication and comprehension, and that the interaction patterns were not symmetrical, as it was the adult’s responsibility to stimulate their children. These parents slowly involved their children in simple household chores and tasks, consequently fostering autonomy and self-reliance. There was a clear knowledge of the children’s rights, consistent with their childrearing practices.
Behind the quality of care, organized and coordinated couples that agreed, listened to each other, and respected the reached agreements about their children’s upbringing were found. Mothers and fathers took on differentiated duties and prevented a role from falling more onto only one parent, even when sometimes one of the parents was the primary provider of the family, and sometimes the other. Therefore, each one was in charge of taking care of different duties and routines. Both parents acknowledged the importance of their partner’s work and created together a solid ground for their children not only when establishing limits and setting rules, but also in maintaining the family’s main premises: love and care, protection and respect.
For example, Eugenia and Gabriela were equally in charge of direct and indirect care, as well as of the teachings, discipline, play and outdoor leisure. It was Gabriela the one who usually fed and drove the children to school, and the one that dealt with their negative behaviors, as it was Eugenia the one who worked on a schedule, which prevented her from being at home more time: them both agreed on these facts. So, the task assignment depended more on the specific work-related situations (as it is within most couples nowadays) and not on the men or women’s roles established within society. Relying on support networks such as family, friends and domestic workers was essential for these couples in order to be able to focus their efforts on what was most important to them: their children.
Gerardo had always wished to become a father, but it hadn’t been in Noe’s plans when they first started dating. It cannot be inferred whether the difference in their parenting aspiration echoed in distinctive behaviors toward Karina that reflected in her dissimilar security scores (i.e., 0.49 and 0.35 with Gerardo and Noe, respectively); however, it suggests that further examination of this relationship in future larger studies would be convenient.
A few months after having started dating, Gerardo and Noe had the opportunity to adopt Karina, and they did; since it was such an early stage in their relationship, it was particularly important that she felt “loved and cared for.” They saw themselves as very loving and eager to display physical contact; these findings were consistent with two characteristic items of their MBQS’s: 38 (
Love was also displayed in the form of fun activities, such as singing and dancing with her, tickling her and rolling: “I invent songs for her every night and she asks me to sing them” (Noe). Item 6 (
The value placed on affection and support toward Karina was something they sought to foster among the people who surrounded her (school and family): “Karina’s circle must be very loving and guarding” (Gerardo); additionally, Noe was interested in Karina “bonding with her cousins and having confidants.” This loving environment was related to certain attributions about her: “Karina is a very happy girl; her personality is a reflection of how loved she feels. She knows that her parents are here to support her in any situation” (Noe). The “being there” was a statement that Gerardo agreed with, as he tried not to miss any moment with his daughter and to “be present” at every developmental milestone: learning to walk, her first words, bladder control, etc.
It was very important for both parents to figure out Karina’s signals. Gerardo looked for multiple possibilities to infer what was wrong with her when he perceived her different from her “normal”: it could be due to “lack of sleep, hunger or the need to go to the toilet,” so he related the girl’s unrest with physical discomforts. Once the previous hypotheses were disregarded, they showed great difficulty understanding her, or at least her negative behavior (crying, yelling, and tantrums). Gerardo said: “there are times that she simply doesn’t want anything and there’s no explanation.” Noe stated: “it’s frustrating not knowing what is wrong; not knowing what triggers it [the tantrum].” He felt quite helpless when he did not understand her. They both put continuous effort into trying to understand what went on with Karina. These data triangulated with the MBQS’s item 5 (
Depending on the situation, they respected Karina if she didn’t want to do certain things, because “it is important not to exercise more control than necessary and give her space” (Gerardo). Other times when facing “communication blockages” (in their own words), they resorted to dialog. Noe and Gerardo told Karina: “look, we are not understanding each other, so calm down and we can then talk and see if we can understand each other better.” The uneasiness was not only brought by being unable to understand her, but they also got upset when Karina “
Taking into consideration that Karina was barely over 2 years old, it is likely that both parents overestimated the girl’s skills. Even though they remained up-to-date regarding child’s development and parenting aspects, there seemed to be a mismatch regarding the interpretations and expectations of Karina’s negative behaviors. Maybe the girl was showing specific needs through crying but the parents gave the impression of asking her to self-regulate at a very young age. All in all, Noe considered that “as any other child, she cries when she feels her parents’ absence,” and consciously understood that crying was a way of communicating and that separation causes anxiety.
The tantrum controversy was an iterative issue with both parents, who thought that Karina did “more tantrums than normal,” so they did everything in their power to figure out the causes. Noe thought that she wanted to call their attention, whereas Gerardo considered that it could be due to a physical problem. However, they both referred to her age as being the main reason for “so many tantrums,” so it would seem that, in the end, it was “normal.” Gerardo said: “she draws attention by crying, hitting or just by saying
For them, tantrums did not represent the only inadequate behavior to be addressed, as “there are rules that are non-negotiable: do not hit, throw food or cutlery on the floor, or display violence; do brush your teeth and get dressed” (Gerardo). Noe felt irritated by the same behaviors: “throwing the dishes or food onto the floor, and slapping.” They both agreed on the way the tantrums were handled, via a consistent use of “punishment” (Noe) or “time out” (Gerardo). It did not matter who carried out the disciplinary measure: if one did, the other one followed. Another strategy they resorted to was to divert her attention: “when Karina didn’t want to eat, Gerardo drew attention to the bubbles and the tantrum ended” (Noe).
Negotiating with Karina was important for both of them, not only as a strategy against the tantrum so that “she feels that she is winning or agreeing” (Gerardo), but also as a way of showing that they took her point of view into consideration. It was very important for the parents to understand Karina: asking her what was wrong or what was bothering her. When faced with a “communication blockage” or when asking her what she wanted or needed, Noe could not identify if “she can’t make herself understood or they don’t understand her.” The fathers admitted that Karina had needs; that communication was a two-way process, and they did not blame her for the lack of understanding. Creating a positive environment for Karina involved recognizing negative emotions in both, the parent and the daughter, in order to treat those with respect. Gerardo was interested in making Karina understand that there were times when he also needed “space” because he was upset, and he expressed it in a very explicit way due to the fact that he considered that the girl needed to learn that “people need a space when they are upset.” This request from father to daughter was associated with what Gerardo gave in return. While Gerardo “feels hurt when Karina gets angry or ignores him” he knows that he is “the adult, and would be foolish not to lower the bar when Karina is angry.”
Communication and understanding was key to these parents, not only interpreting what Karina wanted, but also talking and explaining things to her. Gerardo highlighted the importance of using a clear and understandable language, suitable for the girl’s age, when handling issues; for example, he explained to her why they made use of the “time-out” strategy, or that when leaving her at school, they needed to go and then come back to pick her up, or simply engaging in conversation while in the car. Consistency with another MBQS item was identified (item 79), which was characteristic in both parents:
The need to explain things to Karina was linked to the parents’ concern regarding the future, as “she is a baby girl who can be exposed to discrimination due to her characteristics” (Gerardo), and that might be the reason why he did not want to over protect her, and why he “assigned” her easy house chores in order to encourage independence and autonomy. He allowed her to try to solve certain things by herself even when he knew she wouldn’t be able to, because “Karina is learning to face frustration”; hence, fulfilling all of her wishes and preventing her from getting upset was not among his educational goals. Such autonomy bore fruit and was acknowledged, for example, when Noe described the child as an “independent girl who tries to do her best even though things are not that easy, and she does not act like a spoiled child.” Noe said that both of them “try to involve her in everything: let’s cook, help us, and pass me this or that,” thus the every-day life became playful, shared and full of learning experiences.
It stands out how Noe detailed Karina more extensively, during the interview: “she is daring and fearless, but she exercises caution; she knows that when crossing certain streets, she must hold our hand; she is very feminine and active; she’s intelligent and very expressive; when we have guests over, she is somewhat shy, but then she gains trust and likes to draw attention.”
The fact that both parents were consistent does not mean that they knew or interacted with Karina in the same way; this can also be observed in any family dynamic, where parental roles are usually differentiated. As Gerardo pointed out, Noe played more the role of the “stay-at-home” parent, whereas he played the role of the “provider.”
Even though what being a gay parent means for them was not addressed in this analysis, it can be said that their difficulties and concerns showed the pressure they might feel to be perfect and to prove that they were good parents, mainly because they both were males.
The aim of this research was to explore the elements that configure the quality of care among three Mexican same-sex planned families with 0- to 3-year-old children. A collective case study design that comprised two different techniques was chosen. The MBQS and the AQS quantitative scores served as a benchmark for parents’ and children’s behavior, respectively, whilst the qualitative thematic analysis allowed a deepening of meanings and beliefs underlying the quality of care organization in these families. As stated earlier, comparing same-sex planned families with heterosexual-parented families reinforce heteronormativity by using heterosexual families as the ideal. Hence, Ibero-American studies that used the MBQS/AQS were only taken as a point of reference. Each of the three same-sex planned families constituted a particular case with unique processes and challenges (
The mean score for the three same-sex parents’ sensitivity was 0.74. Therefore, it can be said that the LG caregivers that participated in this study perceived child signals, interpreted them correctly, and responded to them contingently and appropriately, in other words, the three same-sex caregivers displayed sensitive parenting. Security scores (
Due to the lack of attachment theory-based studies in Mexico, there is no such thing as normative data. The only available baseline was research carried out in countries with common history, androcentric culture and high levels of gender-role traditionalism and religiosity (
The thematic analysis of the qualitative data proved useful in order to provide a more in-depth analysis of the three same-sex planned families’ quality of care. This approach offered a freer and richer description of the data which was later contrasted with the literature. Themes and patterns were identified via an inductive ‘bottom-up’ approach (
The subthemes
The
The three same-sex couples that participated in this study were outstanding at giving detailed information regarding idiosyncrasies and mutual adaptation processes between them and their children, as well as providing acceptable alternatives to the inability to fulfill their children’s wishes; both characteristics were part of the fifth subtheme:
In 2010, Bretherton urged that more attention should be placed on the quality of the relationship among parents because parental collaboration might depend on how mothers and fathers evaluate each other as parents (
Finding Mexican same-sex parented families with 0- to 3-year-old children willing to participate was a very hard task. From a positivist view of science, purposive and non-probabilistic sampling ought to be acknowledged as a methodological limitation in the present study. The high socioeconomic status and education of the participants by no means represents the Mexican reality; their comfortable status-quo enabled them to access assisted reproductive technologies (as the two lesbian couples did) and placement adoption (Gerardo and Noe’s case). Pathways to parenthood in Mexican LG individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, motivations for donating, and the emotions experienced as a result of donating are important areas for future research (
Mexico City may be an icon of a progressive and cosmopolitan image of the nation, despite Mexico being a family-oriented and highly religious country, with over 83% of the population identifying with Catholicism (
Given the aforementioned, case studies would be particularly welcomed and appreciated because they offer a means of investigating complex social situations of potential importance in understanding parenting styles and practices in unconventional contexts. This method enables a process of continuous discussion and the redefinition of research questions (
The diversification of both instruments and types of study, including naturalistic observations in multiple settings and occasions, as well as longitudinal designs, is now of utmost importance in order to explore the organization of quality of care in same-sex parented families.
Attachment researchers hypothesize that the quality of caregiving remains a central factor in maintaining and shaping the organization of secure-base behaviors throughout childhood. Ainsworth’s legacy lies not only in her findings and the constructs she developed, but also in the way in which she conducted developmental science (
Findings highlight the heuristic power of Ainsworth’s notions of quality of care, which are relevant when researching on child–caregiver attachment relationships in same-sex parented families. To conclude, it can be stated that these same-sex couples were capable of meeting the child’s best interests, providing “ordinary expectable caregiving environments” (
FS-Q and FR-S: conception of the work. FS-Q, MR, PS, and VC: acquisition of data. FS-Q, PS, and VC: data analysis. FS-Q, FR-S, PC, and MR: interpretation of data. FS-Q, FR-S, and PC: drafting the manuscript. FS-Q, FR-S, PC, MR, PS, and VC: final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors would like to thank Adriana Salinas for her help and support in the data analysis and Yania Cordova for helping the first author keep in touch with the families that participated in this study. Special thanks to the families who generously offered their time, to Majo Pérez, Silvia Ramírez, Matty Matuk and the graduate and undergraduate students from the University of the Republic whose help was crucial.
“
The exact number of members that are actually parents as well as the age of their offspring is unknown. In order to gain a membership, an invitation from a group member is needed.