It’s become completely normal to find a romantic partner through a bit of swiping on your phone. But could the same be about to happen for parenting? “Elective co-parenting” involves two or more people choosing to have and raise a child together outside of a romantic relationship.
And if this becomes commonplace, would it be good or bad? Our new research, published in Reproductive Biomedicine Online, suggests these families actually function just as well.
Elective co-parenting is not new – it has a long history within the LGBTQ+ community. What is new is the rise in heterosexual prospective parents and the use of websites – such as Pride Angel, Modamily and PollenTree – to find a co-parent. These sites diversify the paths to parenthood, but researchers, clinicians and policymakers often struggle to keep pace with such innovation.
Why not wait for “the one” or go it alone? Our research has shown that cisgender heterosexual elective co-parents talk about the desire to create and improve the “traditional” nuclear family unit of two involved parents raising their genetically related child.
For some parents, elective co-parenting is plan B, while for others the appeal is shared parental responsibilities with more freedom and equality. Some parents felt co-parenting could offer greater stability than parenting within a romantic relationship, as the latter could end in divorce. Indeed, when you think of co-parenting you might picture families that are similar to those following parental separation.
But crucially, unlike co-parenting after divorce, elective co-parenting is intentional. Children in these families do not experience relationship breakdown and things that might come with that such as conflict and reduced family income.
Parent and child wellbeing
So how are parents and children doing? Our study provides the first evidence on family formation and wellbeing in elective co-parenting families.
Our study involved surveys, interviews and observations with 41 heterosexual and LGBTQ+ parents from 23 elective co-parent families in the UK, the US and Europe. We found that parents reported resilience in the face of adversity and low levels of anxiety, depression and parenting stress.
What’s more, the children’s social skills, behavioural and emotional problem scores were in line with those of the general population. That could mean the children in these families ultimately are at low clinical risk of emotional and behavioural disorders.
This challenges the idea that the traditional nuclear family is the optimal structure for raising children.
We discovered that having and raising a child outside of a romantic partnership did not prevent parents pursuing or enjoying good quality romantic relationships. We also found that elective co-parents showed higher levels of communication, cooperation and mutual respect with each other compared to divorced parents.
These results underscore ideas that dynamics such as conflict or poor co-operation after separation or divorce may compromise parent and child wellbeing. Starting a family outside a relationship or not living with your co-parent may in fact be a safer bet.
The rise in the use of connection websites has been met with some controversy and concern. While these websites offer personal screening and reduced costs, they also raise questions about medical and legal risks.
But we found no evidence for reduced wellbeing, social support or wellbeing for those who met their co-parent via a website compared to ones who already knew each other. Regardless of how co-parents initially met, family wellbeing remains strong.
The decision to enter into co-parenting arrangements was not taken lightly. Parents who initially met online took similar amounts of time to discuss their options, plan ahead and consider the practicalities of daily life as those who already knew their co-parent.
Similar numbers of parents in both groups drew up co-parenting agreements and underwent medical screening and counselling. As one participant noted, “your communication has to be a lot more mature…even though some are uncomfortable topics, you’ve got to talk about them.”
Challenges
There were some challenges, though. Despite careful planning, some parents reported feeling invisible in legal or healthcare settings. Parents had typically completed co-parenting agreements during pregnancy, but these did not always hold weight in court. When families involved three or more parents, there could be uncertainty regarding who should go on a child’s birth certificate.
Only in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada, and in California, USA are three legal parents allowed on a birth certificate. But even if that isn’t introduced elsewhere, small steps, such as welcoming all prospective parents into ultrasound scans, would be meaningful to parents.
Other challenges included prejudice. Some parents reported not telling their child’s nursery or school staff about their co-parenting arrangements. Regularly updating school materials which highlight diverse family forms may be one avenue to help children and families feel more accepted.
These non-traditional families are well adjusted, with strong co-parenting dynamics and fulfilling romantic lives elsewhere. It’s important to note, however, that the sample was small and voluntary – capturing parents at only one point in time.
We need to follow up these families and other researchers need to replicate the study with more parents. However, as we navigate a world of rising intolerance, it’s crucial to embrace and celebrate a rich tapestry of modern family life. Perhaps elective co-parenting will redefine family for future generations.
Sarah Foley receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. The elective co-parent family project was funded by a Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
