The present study investigated child behavior problems, parenting styles, coparenting, and couple relationship satisfaction in 67 European gay father families via surrogacy and 67 European heterosexual parent families via unassisted conception, all with children aged 1.5–10 years (M = 3.57 years, SD = 2.09). The two family groups were matched for child age and gender. In the gay father group only, the associations between family anti‐gay microaggressions, family/friend support, and other main variables also were explored. Children of gay fathers had fewer externalizing and internalizing problems compared to children of heterosexual parents. Also, gay fathers reported more effective parenting styles, greater coparenting quality, and higher couple relationship satisfaction compared to heterosexual parents. Overall, child externalizing problems (i.e., aggression, rule‐breaking) and internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety, depression) were more strongly associated with being raised in a heterosexual parent family, more authoritarian parenting, and lower positive coparenting. Specific to the gay father sample, anti‐gay microaggressions experienced by family members were associated with more child internalizing problems, lower positive coparenting, and lower social support from family and friends. These results refute concerns about possible detrimental effects on child development of surrogacy conception or of being raised by gay fathers. The results further suggest that family therapists treating child behavior problems should focus mainly on improving the coparenting relationship, reducing authoritarian/punitive parenting styles, and (for gay father families specifically) coping with anti‐gay microaggressions and lack of social support outside the nuclear family.

Les nouvelles familles sont constamment confrontées au travail de deuil concernant leurs appartenances affectives, culturelles et religieuses. Souvent, dans le cadre de la consultation psychothérapeutique, ces familles se proposent comme systèmes relationnels « endeuillés » dont la perte semble constituer leur identité. A travers un cas clinique, on abordera le statut, les propriétés et l’impact de ces pertes pour la famille tout comme pour les thérapeutes. On proposera, enfin, l’idée que le symptôme n’est pas la conséquence directe de la forme familiale mais d’un processus de transition vers des nouvelles appartenances/identités. Processus qui peut bloquer et empêcher, parfois, une nouvelle réorganisation tant structurelle que mythique de la famille et de son avenir.

The present research explored parenting, stress, and resilience experiences among 16 Belgian, lesbian, first-time parental couples with donor-conceived children aged 3–72 months. In each couple, both mothers participated in a conjoint, semi-structured interview focused on their parenthood desire; the impact of stigmatization and social support from families of origin, friends, and institutions; and couple and family resources. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s reflective thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) “The precious baby”: Realizing the parenthood project; (2) “Can we show ourselves in public without prying eyes?”: Family social visibility; (3) “It’s complicated!”: Parental legal recognition and role imbalance; and (4) “How can we handle this?”: Family resilience. The themes indicated that the child’s donor conception, the parents’ coming out, the non-gestational mother’s role, the legal obstacles encountered, and the need to find a balance between the two mothers in childcare tasks generated stress and required mothers to develop resilience strategies. The results suggest several potential areas for mental health practitioners to explore in clinical contexts when supporting intended lesbian mothers in their transition to parenthood through donor insemination.

Résumé Cette recherche vise à décrire les représentations et les pratiques alimentaires de 60 lycéens romains à travers un dispositif méthodologique complexe, associant différentes techniques (réseau d’association de mots, entretiens semi-directifs, test du dessin des contextes alimentaires, échelle d’attitude alimentaire). Les résultats font émerger l’existence de deux modèles de rapport différenciés, selon le sexe et l’appartenance socioprofessionnelle des lycéens, à l’alimentation et au corps. Un modèle protecteur, typique chez les garçons, témoigne d’un rapport au manger et au corps caractérisé surtout par le plaisir. Les contextes alimentaires sont vécus de façon conflictuelle (famille) et ludique (amis). Un tel modèle semble constituer un facteur de préservation à l’égard de risques de pathologie alimentaire. À l’opposé, un modèle à risque, envers les troubles du comportement alimentaire, typique chez les filles, témoigne d’un rapport au manger et au corps plus complexe et marqué par des aspects normatifs, auxquels elles se conformeront et/ou qu’elles transgresseront, selon les contextes alimentaires. Dans un tel rapport, le test du dessin du contexte alimentaire familial montre, notamment, une absence du contact avec la nourriture.

Introduction: Surrogacy is an increasingly viable path to parenthood for same-gender male couples, yet little research has explored their emotional and social experiences. This study qualitatively examined gay fathers’ transition to parenthood via cross-border surrogacy, by focusing on emotional processes, boundary ambiguity, and relationships with “reproductive third others” (i.e., egg donors and surrogates), from conception decision-making to childbirth. Methods: A total of 30 gay fathers (comprising 15 couples; M _age = 40.47, SD = 2.93) of 22 children (M _age = 5.36, SD = 1.89; 50% assigned female at birth), residing in Belgium and France, participated in a joint semi-structured interview. Results: Reflexive thematic analysis identified four overarching themes: (1) “Fostering the desire to become a parent: from mourning to hope”; (2) “Surrogacy as a roller-coaster: long-distance pregnancy, practical complexities, and emotional ambivalence”; (3) “Disclosing surrogacy origins to the child: transparency in evolving narratives”; and (4) “‘Third others’ in procreation and the recognition of double fatherhood.” Conclusions: This study confirms that surrogacy for gay fathers is not merely a reproductive method but a complex emotional and relational experience, marked by unique stressors such as emotional ambivalence, legal uncertainty, and the challenges of maintaining cross-border relationships with surrogates. Policy Implications: To support gay father families, policies must ensure inclusive, harmonized legal recognition of intended parents, provide equitable access to surrogacy regardless of sexual orientation, and establish cross-border support systems—alongside comprehensive training for professionals to address the nuanced realities of LGBTQ+ family formation.