Donor-conceived adult children of lesbian parents showed psychological resilience, regardless of the type of donor or their contact with them, according to new research from the longest-running study of lesbian-headed families. This result “challenges assumptions about donor-related effects on adjustment,” the researchers say.
The Background
The results come from a new paper by the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), which has focused on the same group of subjects since 1986, when the researchers began interviewing the inseminating or pregnant parents. The initial cohort was of 84 families, and the study has seen a notably high 90% retention rate.
Previous NLLFS papers have found, among other things, that the offspring, now in their early 30s, were generally satisfied with the amount of contact they have with their donors, whether or not they know them; that they were generally satisfied with their knowledge of and contact level with their donor siblings; and generally felt positive about their donor conception. The current study built on those, looking at the offsprings’ psychological adjustment at four different life stages—childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, and established adulthood—and the impact in established adulthood of donor contact.
The Latest Insights
The latest results “suggest robust psychological resilience among the NLLFS offspring, irrespective of donor type,” the researchers conclude. Total problem behaviors among the offspring were all in alignment with typical development and “below the threshold for clinical concern.” Neither the donor type (anonymous, known, or open-identity) nor the amount of contact with the donor had any impact on behavioral outcomes—which “challenges prevailing assumptions that knowledge of, or contact with, a donor directly influences psychological well-being,” they write.
These findings suggest robust psychological resilience among the NLLFS offspring, irrespective of donor type.
Furthermore, they say, “The overall positive adjustment of established adults of lesbian parents from ages 10 to 30–33 likely reflects the resilience developed by this cohort and the adaptive strategies that lesbian-parent families developed to cope with the long history of stigmatization associated with their family structure.”
While the level (or absence) of contact with the donor did not impact the offspring’s psychological adjustment, the authors do observe that other research has shown that early disclosure of a child’s donor-conceived origins (before age seven) is associated with “more positive family relationships and higher levels of well-being.”
Implications for Parenting and Health Care
Overall, the authors say, “The stability of psychological adjustment across donor types highlights the fundamental role of family relationships in shaping offspring well-being.” Fostering supportive family environments is therefore important “regardless of the specific donor arrangements.” Future research, they suggest, should look further at how family processes like “communicative practices and parental attitudes toward conception” impact donor-conceived people’s psychological adjustment. (See the resources below if you’re interested in such processes and practices yourself.)
The stability of psychological adjustment across donor types highlights the fundamental role of family relationships in shaping offspring well-being. This underscores the importance of fostering supportive family environments, regardless of the specific donor arrangements.
And although the amount of donor contact does not impact psychological adjustment, the authors remind us that nevertheless, “Finding sperm donors and donor siblings can significantly influence an individual’s sense of family and relatedness.” Donor-conceived adolescents with lesbian parents may therefore still “benefit from guidance and support in integrating the unique aspects of their family structure and their knowledge of DI conception into their broader sense of identity.”
As emerging adults, furthermore, donor-conceived people may be considering their own parenthood and reflecting on “how their own nontraditional family background shapes their plans for having children and how they might explain their donor conception to their future children,” the paper says. They might seek support in doing so, and mental health practitioners should “be equipped to provide guidance and assistance.”
Implications for Policy
Modern-day genetic testing means boundaries between donor types are blurring, however, the researchers add. They advise, therefore, that donor conception policies should be reevaluated to account for this and to “guide families in navigating this new landscape.” At the same time, “The limited impact of donor type and donor contact on psychological adjustment suggests that policies should prioritize family choice and flexibility over rigid frameworks around sperm donation.”
As I’ve said before, it is important to understand how both donor-conceived people with LGBTQ parents and those with heterosexual, cisgender parents feel about being donor-conceived, because many government entities are considering donor-identity release legislation and other bills impacting assisted reproduction and reproductive rights. Not all donor-conceived people feel the same about their experience of being donor-conceived, and we need to make sure a wide range of voices are heard as this legislation is shaped. The NLLFS findings can contribute to that.
The limited impact of donor type and donor contact on psychological adjustment suggests that policies should prioritize family choice and flexibility over rigid frameworks around sperm donation.
The researchers note, however, that the families in the study are predominantly White and cisgender, and they call for future research with families more diverse in race, ethnicity, and gender identity.
Whether on a policy or personal level, the NLLFS continues to add to our understanding of lesbian-headed families even as it points the way forward for further studies.
The paper is “The psychological adjustment of donor-conceived offspring of lesbian parents over two decades: differences by donor type and contact with the donor,” by Nicola Carone, Audrey S. Koh, Henny M.W. Bos, Esther D. Rothblum, and Nanette K. Gartrell, in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, (2025, 105020). Thanks to UCLA’s Williams Institute for announcing it.
In Addition
First, I have to mention a brand-new middle-grade novel about a donor-conceived girl with two moms, The Doughnut Club, by Kristina Rahim (Nosy Crow). I particularly like how it shows us that donor-conceived people may have a range of feelings about being donor conceived, depending on personality, family circumstances, and how and when they learned about their creation. Click the image or link for my full review.
I’ve written many more posts about previous NLLFS findings. One of my favorites is about a 2019 paper on what the NLLFS parents said were the best and most challenging parts of 25 years of parenthood. I’ve also had the pleasure of interviewing founder and lead researcher Dr. Nanette Gartrell twice, once in 2008 when the offspring were teens, and once in 2018 when they were 25.
Want more on talking with kids about donor conception?
- For young children: The picture books from my Database of LGBTQ Family Books tagged “Sperm donor” and “Assisted reproduction.”
- For middle-grade readers: Roads to Family: All the Ways We Come to Be.
- For older youth and adults: COLAGE’s “Donor Conceived: A Guide for People Who Have LGBTQ+ Parents and Were Born via Donor Conception and/or Surrogacy.”
- For adults: LGBTQ Family Building, Your Future Family, and Building Your Family each offer useful advice on talking with kids about donor conception, but see my reviews for some errors and shortcomings. Random Families: Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings, and the Creation of New Kin is a more academic but still very readable book about donor kin networks in both queer and non-queer families.