Three distinct strategies emerge among gay fathers navigating conversations with donor-conceived children
“Is mommy getting a day off?” Gay fathers’ approaches to socialization around family diversity and children’s surrogacy origins. (Carone, 2025)
Carone, N., Tracchegiani, J., Kuhl, M., Cruciani, G., & Quintigliano, M. (2025). “Is mommy getting a day off?” Gay fathers’ approaches to socialization around family diversity and children’s surrogacy origins. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251347863
Geographic Region: Italy
Research Question: What socialization approaches do gay fathers employ to help their children understand family diversity (having two fathers) and their surrogacy origins, and how do these approaches differ across families?
Design: Researchers conducted one-on-one interviews with gay fathers in their homes between January and July 2017.
Sample: Eighty cisgender gay fathers (mean age = 46) from 40 families residing in Italy. Children were conceived through surrogacy (average age 6 years old; roughly half were girls). Most fathers were White, college-educated, worked full-time in professional jobs, and had stable partnerships. Inclusion criteria required target children to be aged 3–9 years. Recruitment occurred through the Italian Rainbow Family association (40%), word-of-mouth referrals (35%), online advertisements (17.5%), and gay father events (7.5%).
Note: Italy criminalizes surrogacy even when done abroad, so these are families who had to travel outside Italy to become parents.
Key Findings:
The study identified three main ways that gay fathers talk with their children about having two dads and being born through surrogacy.
Proactive Approach (most fathers used this). These fathers actively talked with their children about family differences and took concrete steps to prepare them. They did things like: choosing schools and neighborhoods with diverse families; using books, media, and movies to talk about different family types; having open conversations about being a two-dad family; teaching kids how to answer questions like “Where’s your mom?” by saying “I have two dads”; and helping kids feel proud of their family. One father in the study said he taught his child to “spin around” difficult questions by focusing on what they have (two dads) rather than what they lack (a mom). These fathers encouraged schools, daycares, nannies, and extended family to reinforce messages about family diversity and instilled pride and resilience in their children.
Cautious Approach (some fathers used this). These fathers preferred to wait for their children to ask questions rather than bringing up family differences unprompted. They worried that talking too much about being different might make their kids anxious. When children did ask, these fathers answered honestly and in age-appropriate ways. One father explained: “We’ve never made a big deal of it. Just that he’s grown up with this and grown into it.”
Neutral Approach (fewest fathers used this). These fathers treated their family as simply normal and saw little need to discuss it. They assumed kids would naturally understand through living their daily lives. When the topic came up, conversations were brief and matter-of-fact. One father said: “It doesn’t come up very often. It’s just the way things are.” When children showed little interest or curiosity, fathers treated this as evidence that further discussion was unnecessary.
Both fathers in a couple usually agreed on their approach, treating family talks as something they did together rather than one parent’s job alone. However, when disagreements did occur, they often centered on specific details: how much to tell about the biological/genetic father, whether to identify him by name, when to introduce the concept of the egg donor, and how to explain the egg donor’s role.
Disclosure of the genetic father’s identity was complicated and varied. Some fathers had already disclosed which father provided the sperm (genetic/biological connection). One father explained his plan: “I’d like to eventually include details about the donor. We haven’t shared that part yet, nor have we discussed who the biological father is, but we plan to when the time is right.” Other fathers were uncertain about whether, when, or how to disclose this information to their children. This was a source of some tension between co-parents. One might feel ready to share this detail while the other wanted to wait until the child was older or asked directly.
The egg donor’s role received less explicit discussion than the surrogate’s. Fathers used simple language to explain the surrogate (”the woman who helped us,” “helper,” “tia”/aunt), but the egg donor’s role was often mentioned only in passing or delayed entirely. One father noted that they hadn’t yet discussed the egg donor with their child, suggesting this was information to introduce “when the time is right.” The study found that fathers were more focused on helping children understand the surrogate, than on explaining the genetic contribution of the egg donor.
Limitations: Researchers interviewed fathers individually rather than as couples, so they missed conversations that parents might have had together about how they approach socializing their kids. The study only included younger children (ages 3-9), so it’s unclear whether fathers’ approaches change as kids get older and have different questions about identity and origins. The research relied only on fathers’ reports—researchers didn’t observe actual family conversations or ask children directly what they understood about their families. Finally, the study didn’t look in depth at whether the type of surrogacy arrangement (like whether the donor was anonymous or identity-release) affected how fathers talked with their kids about origins.
Applications: Schools can support diverse families through inclusive curricula, anti-bullying initiatives, representation of diverse families in materials, and staff training on LGBTQ+ family-affirming practices. Creating environments where children from diverse families feel normal reduces the burden on parents to manage all socialization externally.
Funding Source: No financial support was received for this research.
Lead Author: Nicola Carone is a developmental psychologist and clinical researcher at the University of Rome Tor Vergata specializing in LGBTQ+ family research, particularly gay fathers through surrogacy. Carone is cisgender and identifies as gay, bringing lived experience to research on sexual minority parent families.
Regulatory Context
Italy maintains one of Europe’s most restrictive assisted reproduction legal frameworks.
Donor treatments became legal in 2014 following a constitutional court ruling overturning previous prohibitions.
Access is limited exclusively to different-sex married or cohabiting couples, excluding single individuals and same-sex couples.
The law mandates anonymous donation and prohibits embryo donation and surrogacy arrangements.
No legal requirements exist for disclosure to children, and the strong Catholic cultural influence creates ongoing tension between pronatalist values and restrictive reproductive policies.
Related Posts