What comes to mind when the words “Father” and “Mother” are mentioned? A function? A stereotype? Someone whose presence is greatly expected and needed?
The landscape of what constitutes a family has changed over the past few decades beyond the traditional boundaries of a father and mother, driven by evolving societal norms, advancements in reproductive technologies, and shifts in gender roles.
This transformation has sparked significant debate about the necessity and distinct contributions of mothers and fathers to a child’s development. Some argue for the interchangeability of parental roles, claiming “no differences” in outcomes based on parental sex or biological relation.
However, a substantial body of research and critical analysis challenges this view.
Despite societal changes and the emergence of “progressive” family forms, the biological connection and the distinct, complementary roles of both a mother and a father remain profoundly important, if not irreplaceable, for a child’s flourishing. This is supported by robust social science evidence and the lived experiences of children themselves.
A quick glance at the definition bank of this repository highlights an expansion of the now many different types of family configurations we see in the world today- from same-sex parents to cohabiting-couple families, all labelled as configurations that “free” adults from heteronormative norms of relationships and are seen as “progressive”. But behind the spews of activist-coded talk, where the real consequences of such family structures are often forgotten, lie some facts that we have to look at. What do the facts say about how these new family configurations affect child well-being?
Specific Effects of Different New Configurations:
The evidence that follows makes clear the cost of growing up outside the care of one’s biological mother and father, a deficit that no well-meaning alternative can fully repair.
Cohabiting Families
Cohabiting Families involve a mother and a boyfriend or partner living together or vice versa, where either one partner may or may not be the child’s biological parent. However, these unions are described as very unstable, with about half splitting by the time the child is five, leading to later instability that undermines parental investments in children.
Children in cohabiting families often show more externalising and internalising behavioural problems than those with married parents. Conversely, unstable cohabiting families are associated with lower cognitive scores and aggravated behavioural problems. Moreover, the presence of a social father (a man not biologically related to the child) in a cohabiting home is associated with an increased risk of abuse or neglect, possibly due to the absence of a biological bond which diminishes any desire for long-term responsibility of emotional investment.
These observations are well-documented by Jane Waldfogel, Terry-Ann Craigie, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn in their paper titled “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being”, which investigates how family structure and stability impact child development, contrasting outcomes for children in married-couple, single-mother, and cohabiting households.
Same-Sex Parent Families
Yes, that argument again. Many studies have historically concluded that children with same-sex parents fare as well or better than those in opposite-sex families across various outcomes like self-esteem, depression, and behavioural problems. This has been presented as a “settled conclusion” in judicial and policy settings, the current assumption that parenting quality instead, trumps the structural composition of the family in determining the outcomes for children.
However, recent larger studies and critical reviews have challenged the “no differences” claim, citing methodological weaknesses in earlier research such as small, biased, non-random samples and insufficient longitudinal data. A study using a large, representative sample found that emotional problems were over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents compared to those with opposite-sex parents. This difference was significant even after controlling for age, sex, race, parent education, and income. Moreover, some findings suggest that children with same-sex parents may be at a significantly higher risk for abuse or other negative outcomes.
One study found that children whose same-sex parents were married had increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, daily distress, and lower educational achievement and school connectedness compared to children with unmarried same-sex parents or married opposite-sex parents.
Another analysis found that high school graduation rates were 35% lower for children with same-sex parents in Canada.
- (Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition: Referencing Allen, Douglas W. “High School Graduation Rates Among Children of Same-Sex Households.” Review of Economics of the Household 11, no. 4 (2013): 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y)
At its core, the “intentional” separation from a biological parent is highlighted as a problem for donor offspring. The concept of biological parentage as described by Dr Paul Sullins is argued to be a crucial distinguishing factor; studies show that the lowest risk of emotional problems is among children living with both biological parents who are married, a condition not possible for same-sex partners to jointly provide. - (Emotional Problems among Children with Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Definition, Dr Paul Sullins)
What are we fighting for then?
Like it or not, the core argument behind the irreplaceability of having a father and mother stems from their distinct yet complementary parenting styles.
More than simply showering love and affection, the unique traits of both a father and a mother collectively foster holistic child development.
Research supports the idea that both parents bring unique benefits to their children’s lives. For instance, Psychiatrist and APA fellow Dr. Scott Haltzman observes: “Women, compared to men, have higher levels of oxytocin, the hormone responsible for emotional bonding and more oxytocin receptors.”
Fathers’ Unique Contributions
Fathers are often described as “activation figures” who encourage exploration, risk-taking (within safe limits), and independence. They are frequently seen as primary playmates, particularly engaging in physically active or “rough-and-tumble” play, which aids children in developing self-regulation and managing excitement and aggression.
The language of fathers are also distinct, with specific vocabulary and the use of “wh-questions” linked to children’s language and cognitive development, sometimes above and beyond mothers’ contributions. Furthermore, fathers play a crucial role in shaping a child’s categorical self and teaching them to adapt to social norms.
Mothers’ Unique Contributions
Mothers typically provide warmth, security, and responsive soothing, acting as the primary source of comfort during distress. Their consistent presence in early life helps children develop fundamental trust and emotional regulation skills for emotions like sadness and fear.
And almost at instance, the argument of “But doesn’t this reduce parenting to a set of gender-based stereotypes — boxing mothers and fathers into fixed roles based on what each sex is more likely to do?” does crop up.
And we do acknowledge the instance of single-parents stepping in to fulfil an absent role. Yes, the examples of how heroic single parents raise their kids from rags to riches certainly are celebrated. But these are cases which should make us realise the importance of completion in a family, where one should never have to suffer from such brokenness.
The case is that from a macro perspective, fathers and mothers exemplify these specific characteristics more consistently. What a child gains from having the security of their biological father and mother is the idea of complementarity, where the child can develop a secure sense of self, emotional regulation, and social competence from the unique strengths of both their parents.
In conclusion, this ideal is not merely a traditional preference. It is supported by evidence indicating that the combination of biological parentage, marital status, and the complementary roles of opposite-sex parents offers the most optimal conditions for child development across measures of emotional well-being, physical health, and academic achievements. To truly consider a child’s best interests, those seeking to re-write family norms must reckon with an uncomfortable truth: a child benefits most from the presence of both a father and a mother, a reality that must take precedence over any adult’s personal desire to have a child.
