Most Lesbian Moms Satisfied with Type of Sperm Donor

The majority of lesbian moms who conceived through donor insemination are satisfied with their choice of a known, unknown, or open-identity (child may contact when 18) donor, according to new research based on the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running and largest study of U.S. lesbian families.

Looking back on the donors they chose 18 years ago, 77.5 percent of the 129 lesbian moms in the study were satisfied with their choice of donor, according to a paper released by UCLA’s Williams Institute and appearing in the journal Fertility and Sterility. There were no significant differences between biological and nonbiological moms. Their satisfaction was also unrelated to the presence or absence of psychological problems in their 17-year-olds. (Previous results from the NLLFS have shown that donor type had no bearing on the overall quality of life or psychological well-being of the NLLFS adolescents.)

Those who were satisfied with their choices split nearly equally across donor types. Among those who were dissatisfied, a majority had used unknown donors. Comparing donor types, mothers who used open-identity donors were more satisfied than dissatisfied, while the opposite was true for those who used unknown donors.

Different-sex couples who use donor insemination usually choose unknown donors, explained Principal Investigator Nanette Gartrell, MD, in a press statement. “Prospective lesbian mothers consider donors of all three types, depending on their preferences and circumstances. It’s often a complicated decision that involves a consideration of the child’s need to know her or his genetic origins, balanced with prospective mothers’ desire to raise children within a planned lesbian family and without custody disputes.”

Want the details? Read on.

Known Donors

Of the mothers who satisfied with their choice of a known donor, “nearly all mentioned reasons related to the relationship between the donor and the offspring and/or mother(s).” One said, for example, “‘[The donor] cares for [my daughter] and is interested in her life and I’m happy with how she turned out knowing that half of her came from him.'” Additionally, many were pleased that the child had access to the donor’s family, including half-siblings, and many spoke of “the donor’s intrinsic qualities that were a good fit for the family.” When the donor was involved with the family’s life, the mothers considered him and his partner and/or other children members of the extended family, someone with whom they celebrated holidays and special events.

Many satisfied mothers, though, did not want to share parenting with the donor and appreciated his “limited involvement” in the children’s life.

To paraphrase Robert Frost, however, “Good fences make good donors.” Many mothers “had chosen donors with good boundaries” in order to reduce the chance of custody conflicts. The authors observe that, “Successfully navigating these relationships typically involves thoughtful negotiations regarding donor involvement, role, and title (e.g., having the child refer to the donor as a dad, relative, or friend)” even before starting insemination.

Mothers who were dissatisfied with known donors cited disappointment in their family’s relationship with the donor or the donor’s intrinsic qualities. Some said their donors had mental health problems, and others said he was “too uninvolved or had communication problems.”

Open-identity Donors

Almost all of the mothers who used open-identity donors were satisfied with their choice. A majority were pleased that their 17-year-olds would soon have the option of meeting their donors. Previous research, the authors note, has shown that adolescents with open-identity donors have felt that “meeting their donors would teach them more about themselves.”

Additionally, many mothers also felt that using an open-identity donor had helped them avoid custody conflicts and/or unwanted parenting by the donor, and thus protected the parenting rights of the nonbiological mother.

The authors hypothesize that “the absence of negative interactions” with these donors as the children grew up enabled the mothers “to focus on their gratitude toward the donor and overall satisfaction with the outcome.”

The few mothers who were dissatisfied with open-identity donors mostly said they wanted “more information about or access to the donor.”

Unknown Donors

Most mothers who were satisfied with an unknown donor emphasized their wish to avoid legal conflicts and/or parenting by the donor. They said, however, that having an unknown donor had not been detrimental to their children.

Among those who were not satisfied, “nearly all” said they wished their children had information about or access to the donor. They expressed concern over “the pain and/or frustration” their children might have over never meeting him. At the same time, “this lost opportunity had not contributed to significant problems in psychological adjustment or a diminished quality of life” compared to the children of other donor types, so the researchers note, “it is possible that the mothers’ concerns may differ from their offspring’s perspective.”

Some mothers who used an unknown donor said they would choose differently if they had to do it again. They had used an unknown donor because they could not find a known one or had limited access to sperm banks with open-identity donors. The researchers note that “at the time that the NLLFS mothers were inseminating (1986—1992), open-identity sperm donor programs were not universally available.” There was also a greater fear that the nonbio mom would not be recognized as a parent, and known donors could be awarded custody. Future studies, they say, ” will undoubtedly reflect the more widespread availability of open-identity insemination programs and a broader acceptance of same-sex parent families.”

Limitations and Conclusion

The authors note a few limitations of their study. The mothers are mostly Caucasian, urban, and middle class, living in the northeastern or western regions of the U.S., and well educated. (Nearly 90 percent had a college degree or higher.) When the study began, more lesbian mothers were closeted than they are today, so the NLLFS used a convenience sample — volunteers who fit the qualifications for the study — rather than a representative sample reflecting the population as a whole. “A more diverse sample would provide insight into the associations among race/ethnicity, region of residence, socioeconomic class, and satisfaction with the types of sperm donors selected,” the authors explain.

The use of a convenience sample may also mean that the NLLFS mothers are more interested in the psychosocial development of children conceived with donor sperm than are those in the broad population, which could impact their responses. Lastly, the authors note that many countries do not allow permanently unknown donors, so the results may not apply in all locations.

Despite those qualifications, they assert: “We believe that our study, derived from the largest, longest running prospective investigation of lesbian parent families in the United States, may provide useful insights to health care professionals and prospective lesbian mothers who are engaged in a decision-making process regarding sperm donor selection.”

My spouse and I used an unknown donor, mostly to avoid legal entanglements. I’d say we’re satisfied with our choice to that extent, but if we had to do it again, we’d likely consider open-identity, all other things (especially the health of the donor) being equal. How about you?