research paper mothers work

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Chapter 1: comparing stay-at-home and working mothers.

From their education levels to their birthplaces, the nation’s 10.4 million stay-at-home mothers have distinct differences from the 25.2 million mothers who work outside the home. But there are equally striking differences among different groups of stay-at-home mothers, be they married, single or cohabiting.

In general, married stay-at-home mothers are better off financially than their counterparts who are single or cohabiting. They are more likely to say they are home because they choose to be, not because they could not find a job, or are ill, disabled or enrolled in school. They are better educated and less likely to be in poverty.

Married Mothers with Working Husbands

As is true of stay-at-home mothers overall, those who are married with working husbands are younger than their working counterparts. A higher share has a child age 5 or younger at home. They are more likely to be Hispanic and less likely to be white. Married stay-at-home mothers with working husbands are nearly twice as likely to be foreign born as their working counterparts (38% vs. 20% in 2012), a larger gap than is true for other types of stay-at-home mothers compared with their working counterparts.

Married stay-at-home mothers with working husbands represent the largest group of stay-at-home mothers, 68% in 2012. That share has declined since 1970, when it was 85%. The number of these married stay-at-home mothers, 11.6 million in 1970, was 6.4 million in 2000 and 7.1 million in 2012.

The vast majority of married stay-at-home mothers with a working husband (85% in 2012) say they are not working because they are taking care of their home and family. The share was 96% in 1970. Small shares say they are home because they were ill or disabled (5%), were in school (4%) or could not find a job (3%).

Single Mothers

Most (71% in 2012) are below the poverty level, compared with a quarter (27%) of single working mothers. One-in-five single stay-at-home mothers (20%) received welfare income in 2012, compared with only 4% of single working mothers. About a quarter (23%) received alimony or child support, compared with 30% of working single mothers who did. And 5% reported receiving some income from family or friends.

Single stay-at-home mothers are slightly younger than working single mothers, and are more likely to have at least one child age 5 or younger at home. About a third are white, somewhat less than the 42% of working single women who are, and about a third are black, somewhat more than the 29% of working single mothers who are. A quarter are Hispanic, a similar share as for working single mothers (23%). The share of foreign-born is similar for single stay-at-home mothers and working mothers but is lower than for married stay-at-home mothers.

The share of all stay-at-home mothers who are single rose to 29% in 1993, fell to 18% in 1999 and grew slightly to 20% in 2012. 11 There were 1.1 million single stay-at-home mothers in 1970, 1.5 million in 2000 and 2 million in 2012.

Single stay-at-home mothers include those who have never been married, are divorced, separated or widowed, and who do not have partners living with them. About half (48%) have another adult relative in the household, an indication that someone else may be available to help with child care or financial support.

Less than half of single mothers at home (41% in 2012) say the reason they do not hold a paying job is to take care of home and family. The rest say say they are home because they are ill or disabled (27%), cannot find work (14%), or are in school (13%). The reasons for being home have changed substantially for this group since 1970, when 76% said they were at home in order to care for home and family.

Cohabiting Mothers

Among cohabiting stay-at-home mothers, fully one-in-five (21%) is younger than 25, compared with 15% of working cohabiting mothers. Nearly two-thirds have at least one child age 5 or younger at home, compared with about half of cohabiting working mothers who do.

Cohabiting stay-at-home mothers are somewhat less likely than their working counterparts to be white, and somewhat more likely to be Hispanic. The shares of cohabiting stay-at-home mothers and at-work mothers who are black are identical. One-in-five cohabiting stay-at-home mothers (20%) is foreign born, somewhat higher than for cohabiting working mothers (15%) but lower than for married stay-at-home mothers (38%).

Data for cohabiting mothers have been fully available only since 2006, when they made up 4% of all stay-at-home mothers; their share was 5% in 2012.

About two-thirds of cohabiting stay-at-home mothers (64% in 2012) say they are taking care of home and family. Others say they are not working because they are ill or disabled (17%), going to school (11%) or unable to find work (6%).

Married Mothers with Non-Working Husbands

About three-fourths (74%) are poor, compared with a quarter (24%) of their working counterparts. Among this group, 9% received welfare in 2012, compared with 4% of their working counterparts.

They are somewhat more likely to be Hispanic than comparable working mothers and less likely to be white. The share who are immigrants was 35% in 2012, compared with 31% of their working counterparts.

Married stay-at-home mothers whose husbands are not working made up 7% of all stay-at-home mothers in 2012. Since 1970, their share of stay-at-home mothers has ranged from 5% to 9%. They are younger than comparable working mothers: About four-in-ten (39%) are younger than 35, compared with 29% of married working mothers with non-working husbands. However, they are less likely than other stay-at-home mothers to have children age 5 or younger at home; only 41% did in 2012, about the same as married working mothers with non-working husbands (40%).

Some 57% of married stay-at-home mothers with non-working husbands say they themselves are home in order to take care of home and family. One-in-five (19%) say they are home because they are ill or disabled, and 9% each say it is because they are going to school or could not find a job.

• It is beyond the scope of this report to analyze the reason for these trends, but other researchers have documented a rise in employment of low-income single mothers after passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which included stricter work requirements and time limits on cash benefits. ↩

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of Contents

Young adults in the u.s. are less likely than those in most of europe to live in their parents’ home, a majority of young adults in the u.s. live with their parents for the first time since the great depression, as millennials near 40, they’re approaching family life differently than previous generations, as family structures change in u.s., a growing share of americans say it makes no difference, with billions confined to their homes worldwide, which living arrangements are most common, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Mothers’ Work Schedules and Children’s Time with Parents

• Original Paper
• Published: 10 May 2023
• Volume 45 , pages 117–136, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Alejandra Ros Pilarz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-6106 1 &
• Leah Awkward-Rich 1  

488 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Prior research shows that mothers’ nonstandard work schedules are associated with worse child developmental outcomes. A key hypothesized mechanism of this relationship is children’s time with parents. Yet, it is unclear how mothers’ work schedules matter for the quantity of time or types of activities in which children engage with their parents. Using unique children’s time-diary data on 808 children with employed mothers from a national survey of households, OLS regression models were used to estimate associations between mothers’ nonstandard schedules and children’s time with their mother—and in two-parent families, total time with either parent—considering both the total amount of time and time engaged in developmentally-supportive activities. We found that mothers’ nonstandard schedules were associated with children spending more time with their mother on weekdays and suggestive evidence that this led to children spending more total time with their mother during the week. However, these positive associations were driven by mothers working irregular schedules with evidence of negative associations for evening and night schedules. The associations between mothers’ work schedules and children’s time with parents also varied by child age and family structure, suggesting that children in two-parent families, and those with more social and economic resources overall, may fare better than their counterparts when their mother works a nonstandard schedule. Findings highlight the importance of examining subgroup differences when estimating the associations between mothers’ work schedules and child and family outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Couples’ Work Schedules and Child-Care Use in the Netherlands

Melissa Verhoef, Anne Roeters & Tanja van der Lippe

When Does Time Matter? Maternal Employment, Children’s Time With Parents, and Child Development

Amy Hsin & Christina Felfe

How do Maternal Nonstandard Work Schedules Affect Early Child Development? A Mediation Analysis

Nahri Jung, Minseop Kim, … Ying Zhou

Data Availability

The PSID data are publicly available via the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan at https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ .

Consent for Publication

All authors have approved the manuscript and consent to its publication in this journal.

It is important to note that our estimates of mothers’ work schedules are at the child level. The distribution of work schedules differs at the mother level: 19% of mothers worked any nonstandard schedule; 5% worked evenings or at night; 9% worked a rotating or split schedule; and 6% worked an irregular schedule.

Some time use studies have used seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) models when analyzing time spent in different types of activities in order to account for interdependence in the outcomes since time spent in one activity necessarily reduces time spent in other activities (e.g., Gimenez-Nadal & Molina, 2013 ). We considered this approach but were unable to estimate SUR models in these data due to models not converging.

In robustness tests, we also estimated our main models using jackknife standard errors instead of clustered standard errors. However, jackknife standard errors are not compatible with multiple imputation; therefore, we estimated these models in each imputed dataset and averaged the standard errors across all estimates. Results showed that jackknife SEs are consistently similar in size or smaller than those in our main models; results available from the authors upon request.

Abidin, R. R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21 (4), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2104_12

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2007). Shift work, parenting behaviors, and children’s socioemotional well-being: A within-family study. Journal of Family Issues, 28 (6), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06298737

Bassok, D., Fitzpatrick, M., & Loeb, S. (2011). Disparities in child care availability across communities: Differential reflection of targeted interventions and local demand (Unpublished manuscript). https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/disparities-child-care-availability-across-communities-differential-reflection-targeted-interventions-and-local-demand

Boushey, H. (2006). Tag-team parenting . Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://www.cepr.net/documents/work_schedules_2006_08.pdf

Carrillo, D., Harknett, K., Logan, A., Luhr, S., & Schneider, D. (2017). Instability of work and care: How work schedules shape child-care arrangements for parents working in the service sector. Social Service Review, 91 (3), 422–455. https://doi.org/10.1086/693750

Coley, R. L., Votruba-Drzal, E., Collins, M. A., & Miller, P. (2014). Selection into early education and care settings: Differences by developmental period. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.006

Connelly, R., & Kimmel, J. (2011). The role of non-standard work status in parental caregiving for young children. Eastern Economic Journal, 37 (2), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2010.45

Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2012). Dual-earner parents’ work–family time: The effects of atypical work patterns and non-parental childcare. Journal of Population Research, 29 (3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-012-9086-5

De Marco, A., Crouter, A. C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & The Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2009). The relationship of maternal work characteristics to childcare type and quality in rural communities. Community, Work and Family, 12 (4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800802528249

Dunifon, R. E., Kalil, A., Crosby, D. A., & Su, J. H. (2013). Mothers’ night work and children’s behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 49 (10), 1874–1885. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031241

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dunifon, R. E., Near, C. E., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2018). Backup parents, playmates, friends: Grandparents’ time with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80 (3), 752–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12472

Enchautegui, M. E. (2013). Nonstandard work schedules and the well-being of low-income families . Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonstandard-work-schedules-and-well-being-low-income-families

Enchautegui, M. E., Johnson, M., & Gelatt, J. (2015). Who minds the kids when mom works a nonstandard schedule? Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/64696/2000307-Who-Minds-the-Kids-When-Mom-Works-a-Nonstandard-Schedule.pdf

Fiorini, M., & Keane, M. P. (2014). How the allocation of children’s time affects cognitive and noncognitive development. Journal of Labor Economics, 32 (4), 787–836. https://doi.org/10.1086/677232

Fomby, P., & Musick, K. (2018). Mothers’ time, the parenting package, and links to healthy child development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80 (1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12432

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Foster, G., & Kalenkoski, C. M. (2013). Tobit or OLS? An empirical evaluation under different diary window lengths. Applied Economics, 45 (20), 2994–3010. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.690852

Fox, L., Han, W.-J., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2012). Time for children: Trends in the employment patterns of parents, 1967–2009. Demography, 50 (1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0138-4

Fuller, B., Loeb, S., Strath, A., & Carrol, B. A. (2004). State formation of the child care sector: Family demand and policy action. Sociology of Education, 77 (4), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700404

Gassman-Pines, A. (2011). Low-income mothers’ nighttime and weekend work: Daily associations with child behavior, mother–child interactions, and mood. Family Relations, 60 (1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00630.x

Gennetian, L. A., Datta, A. R., Goerge, R., Zanoni, W., Brandon, R., Witte, A., & Krishnamurty, P. (2019). How much of children’s time in nonparental care coincides with their parents’ time at work? Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World , 5 , 237802311989484. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119894848

Gerstel, N., & Clawson, D. (2018). Control over time: Employers, workers, and families shaping work schedules. Annual Review of Sociology, 44 (1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041400

Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Molina, J. A. (2013). Parents’ education as a determinant of educational childcare time. Journal of Population Economics, 26 (2), 719–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-012-0443-7

Golden, L. (2015). Irregular work scheduling and its consequences. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2597172

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Gordon, R. A., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2008). Child care and work absences: Trade-offs by type of care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (1), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00475.x

Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment . Russell Sage Foundation.

Gracia, P., & Kalmijn, M. (2016). Parents’ family time and work schedules: The split-shift schedule in Spain. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 (2), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12270

Han, W.-J. (2004). Nonstandard work schedules and child care decisions: Evidence from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.003

Han, W.-J. (2008). Shift work and child behavioral outcomes. Work, Employment and Society, 22 (1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017007087417

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Han, W.-J., & Fox, L. E. (2011). Parental work schedules and children’s cognitive trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73 (5), 962–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00862.x

Han, W.-J., & Miller, D. P. (2009). Parental work schedules and adolescent depression. Health Sociology Review, 18 (1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.18.1.36

Han, W.-J., Miller, D. P., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Parental work schedules and adolescent risky behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 46 (5), 1245–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020178

Hattery, A. J. (2001). Tag-team parenting: Costs and benefits of utilizing nonoverlapping shift work in families with young children. Families in Society, 82 (4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.185

Henly, J. R., Lambert, S. J., & Dresser, L. (2021). The new realities of working-class jobs: Employer practices, worker protections, and employee voice to improve job quality. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 695 (1), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211028130

Hepburn, P. (2020). Work scheduling for American mothers, 1990 and 2012. Social Problems, 67 (4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz038

Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Response bias in a popular indicator of reading to children. Sociological Methodology, 36 (1), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00182.x

Hsin, A., & Felfe, C. (2014). When does time matter? Maternal employment, children’s time with parents, and child development. Demography, 51 (5), 1867–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0334-5

Hsueh, J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2007). Working nonstandard schedules and variable shifts in low-income families: Associations with parental psychological well-being, family functioning, and child well-being. Developmental Psychology, 43 (3), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.620

Joshi, P., & Bogen, K. (2007). Nonstandard schedules and young children’s behavioral outcomes among working low-income families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69 (1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00350.x

Kalenkoski, C. M., Ribar, D. C., & Stratton, L. S. (2007). The effect of family structure on parents’ child care time in the United States and the United Kingdom. Review of Economics of the Household, 5 (4), 353–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-007-9017-y

Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Chor, E. (2014). Time investments in children across family structures. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654 (1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214528276

Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and the developmental gradient in time with children. Demography, 49 (4), 1361–1383.

Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2019). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995–2015. ILR Review, 72 (2), 382–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918820008

Kendig, S. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008). Single, cohabitating, and married mothers’ time with children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (5), 1228–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00562.x

Lambert, S. J., Fugiel, P. J., & Henly, J. R. (2014). Precarious work schedules among early-career employees in the US: A national snapshot (p. 24). EINet at the University of Chicago. https://ssa.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/lambert.fugiel.henly_.precarious_work_schedules.august2014_0.pdf

Lambert, S. J., Henly, J. R., & Kim, J. (2019). Precarious work schedules as a source of economic insecurity and institutional distrust. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences , 5 (4), 218–257. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2019.5.4.08

Lesnard, L. (2008). Off-scheduling within dual-earner couples: An unequal and negative externality for family time. American Journal of Sociology, 114 (2), 447–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/590648

Li, J., Johnson, S. E., Han, W.-J., Andrews, S., Kendall, G., Strazdins, L., & Dockery, A. (2014). Parents’ nonstandard work schedules and child well-being: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 35 (1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0318-z

Lozano, M., Hamplová, D., & Le Bourdais, C. (2016). Non-standard work schedules, gender, and parental stress. Demographic Research, 34 , 259–284. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.9

Magnuson, K., & Shager, H. (2010). Early education: Progress and promise for children from low-income families. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 (9), 1186–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.006

Milkie, M. A., Nomaguchi, K. M., & Denny, K. E. (2015). Does the amount of time mothers spend with children or adolescents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 77 (2), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12170

Mills, M., & Täht, K. (2010). Nonstandard work schedules and partnership quality: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (4), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00735.x

Pepin, J. R., Sayer, L. C., & Casper, L. M. (2018). Marital status and mothers’ time use: Childcare, housework, leisure, and sleep. Demography, 55 (1), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0647-x

Perrucci, R., MacDermid, S., King, E., Tang, C.-Y., Brimeyer, T., Ramadoss, K., Kiser, S. J., & Swanberg, J. (2007). The significance of shift work: Current status and future directions. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28 (4), 600–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-007-9078-3

Perry-Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., & Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload, and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69 (1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00349.x

Phillips, D. A., Anderson, S., Datta, A. R., & Kisker, E. E. (2018). The changing landscape of publicly-funded center-based child care: 1990 and 2012. Children and Youth Services Review, 91 , 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.029

Pilarz, A. R., Lin, Y.-C., & Magnuson, K. A. (2019). Do parental work hours and nonstandard schedules explain income-based gaps in center-based early care and education participation? Social Service Review, 93 (1), 55–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/702685

Pilarz, A. R., & Walther, A. (2021, May). Trends in mothers’ work schedules in the U.S., 1988–2017. In Population Association of America annual meeting , Virtual, 2021.

Presser, H. B. (1988). Shift work and child care among young dual-earner American parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50 (1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/352434

Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for American families . Russell Sage Foundation.

Presser, H. B., & Ward, B. (2011). Nonstandard work schedules over the life course: A first look. Monthly Labor Review, 134 , 3–16.

Google Scholar  

Prickett, K. C., & Augustine, J. M. (2021). Trends in mothers’ parenting time by education and work from 2003 to 2017. Demography, 58 (3), 1065–1091. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9160022

Raley, S., Bianchi, S. M., & Wang, W. (2012). When do fathers care? Mothers’ economic contribution and fathers’ involvement in child care. American Journal of Sociology, 117 (5), 1422–1459. https://doi.org/10.1086/663354

Rapoport, B., & Le Bourdais, C. (2008). Parental time and working schedules. Journal of Population Economics, 21 (4), 903–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0147-6

Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. (2019). Consequences of routine work-schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review, 84 (1), 82–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418823184

Stewart, J. (2013). Tobit or not Tobit? Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 38 (3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.3233/JEM-130376

Strazdins, L., Clements, M. S., Korda, R. J., Broom, D. H., & D’Souza, R. M. (2006). Unsociable work? Nonstandard work schedules, family relationships, and children’s well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68 (2), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00260.x

Täht, K., & Mills, M. (2012). Nonstandard work schedules, couple desynchronization, and parent–child interaction: A mixed-methods analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 33 (8), 1054–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11424260

Tang, C.-Y., & Wadsworth, S. M. (2010). Time and workplace flexibility . Families and Work Institute. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ow8usu72/production/35fc6a946981251e680c0c02154b0d70f477cf36.pdf

Vogel, M., Braungardt, T., Meyer, W., & Schneider, W. (2012). The effects of shift work on physical and mental health. Journal of Neural Transmission, 119 (10), 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-012-0800-4

Wight, V. R., Raley, S. B., College, M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008). Time for children, one’s spouse and oneself among parents who work nonstandard hours. Social Forces , 87 (1), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0092

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Tests of achievement, standard battery . Riverside Publishing.

Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (1), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.x

Zilanawala, A., & McMunn, A. (2022). Nonstandard work schedules in the UK: What are the implications for parental mental health and relationship happiness? Community, Work and Family. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2077173

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge research support from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The authors also thank Kess Ballentine, Dylan Bellisle, Marcy Carlson, Paula Fomby, Julia Henly, Heather Hill, Jaeseung Kim, and Dan Meyer for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors.

This study received funding via an Internal Grant from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to the first author. The collection of data used in this study was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health under Grant Numbers R01 HD069609 and R01 AG040213, and the National Science Foundation under Award Numbers SES 1157698 and 1623684.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sandra Rosenbaum School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1350 University Avenue, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

Alejandra Ros Pilarz & Leah Awkward-Rich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study design and data analysis, as well as to the drafting of the manuscript and its revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandra Ros Pilarz .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

The PSID data used in this study were obtained from the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, which operates under the ethical oversight of the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board. The PSID data used in this study are publicly available and deidentified, and therefore, this study was exempt from further IRB review.

Informed Consent

Not applicable because this study uses secondary data.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 87 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pilarz, A.R., Awkward-Rich, L. Mothers’ Work Schedules and Children’s Time with Parents. J Fam Econ Iss 45 , 117–136 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-023-09894-z

Download citation

Accepted : 03 March 2023

Published : 10 May 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-023-09894-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Work schedules
• Maternal employment
• Parent–child relations
• Time diary methods
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

What research says about the kids of working moms

We spotlight research on working moms. Overall, the research suggests maternal employment has little impact on kid's behavior and academic achievement over the short term and may have long-term benefits.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource August 6, 2018

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/economics/working-mother-employment-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Most American moms work outside the home. Nearly 70 percent of women with children under age 18 were in the labor force in 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

In recent decades, as more mothers take paid positions, families, policymakers and scholars have wondered how the trend may impact children, especially during their early years. Many women, single parents in particular, must work because they either can’t afford to stay at home to raise their kids or the government agencies they rely on for assistance require them to be employed.

Work is also a choice for a lot of women. As more women in the United States complete college degrees — the percentage of women earning bachelor’s degrees skyrocketed between 1967 and 2015  — many have opted to leave their youngsters with a family member or daycare provider while they pursue careers and other professional interests.

Is this trend good or bad? Are kids with working moms different from kids whose moms are unemployed? Do they have more or fewer behavioral problems? Are their academic skills stronger or weaker? Let’s look at what the research says.

The good news: Overall, maternal employment seems to have a limited impact on children’s behavior and academic achievement over the short term. And there appear to be benefits in the long-term. A study published in 2018 finds that daughters raised by working moms are more likely to be employed as adults and have higher incomes.

Below, we’ve gathered a sampling of the academic research published or released on this topic in recent years. If you’re looking for workforce trend data, check out the U.S. Department of Labor’s website , which offers a variety of reports on women at work. A May 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, “7 Facts about U.S. Moms,” provides some useful context.

———–

“When Does Time Matter? Maternal Employment, Children’s Time With Parents, and Child Development” Hsin, Amy; Felfe, Christina. Demography , October 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-014-0334-5.

Do working moms spend less time with their children? And if they do, does that hurt kids’ cognitive development? Amy Hsin from Queens College-City University of New York and Christina Felfe of the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland teamed up to investigate.

The gist of what they found: Mothers who work full-time do spend less time with their children, but they tend to trade quantity of time for better quality time. “On average, maternal work has no effect on time in activities that positively influence children’s development, but it reduces time in types of activities that may be detrimental to children’s development,” Hsin and Felfe explain. Each week, kids whose mothers work full-time spend 3.2 fewer hours engaged in “unstructured activities” — activities that don’t require children and parents to be actively engaged and speaking to one another — compared to kids whose moms are unemployed.

The researchers also find that children with college-educated mothers spend more time on educational activities as well as “structured” activities, which require kids to be actively engaged with their parents. “For example, college-educated mothers and their partners spend 4.9 hours and 2.5 hours per week, respectively, engaged in educational activities with their children; by comparison, mothers with less than [a] high school diploma and their partners spend only 3.3 hours and 1.7 hours per week in educational activities, respectively,” according to the study.

Maternal employment, generally speaking, appears to have a positive effect on children’s cognitive development. “When comparing the effect of maternal employment on child outcomes between stay-at-home mothers and mothers who work full-time, we see that the reduction in unstructured time resulting from full-time employment amounts to an improvement in children’s cognitive development of 0.03 to 0.04 SD [standard deviation],” the authors write. For children under age 6, the improvement is larger.

“Learning from Mum: Cross-National Evidence Linking Maternal Employment and Adult Children’s Outcomes” McGinn, Kathleen L.; Castro, Mayra Ruiz; Lingo, Elizabeth Long. Work, Employment and Society , April 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0950017018760167.

These researchers analyzed data from two surveys conducted across 29 countries to examine how men and women had been influenced by their mother’s work status. The main takeaway: Daughters raised by working mothers are more likely to have jobs as adults — and those who have jobs are more likely to supervise others, work longer hours and earn higher incomes.

There doesn’t appear to be a link between maternal employment and employment for sons, according to the study. However, men whose mothers worked while they were growing up spend about 50 minutes more caring for family members each week than men whose moms didn’t work.

The study, led by Kathleen L. McGinn of Harvard Business School , notes that these outcomes are “due at least in part to employed mothers’ conveyance of egalitarian gender attitudes and life skills for managing employment and domestic responsibilities simultaneously. Family-of-origin social class matters: women’s likelihood of employment rises with maternal employment across the socio-economic spectrum, but higher incomes and supervisory responsibility accrue primarily to women raised by mothers with more education and higher skill jobs.”

“Increasing Maternal Employment Influences Child Overweight/Obesity Among Ethnically Diverse Families” Ettinger, Anna K.; Riley, Anne W.; Price, Carmel E. Journal of Family Issues , July 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0192513X18760968.

This study looks at how maternal employment affects the weight status of Black and Latino children from low-income families in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. The researchers find that an increase in a mother’s “work intensity” — for example, when a mother transitions from being unemployed to working or switches from part-time to full-time work — increases the odds that her child will be overweight or obese.

Kids whose mothers increased their work schedules during the children’s first few years of life were more likely to have a weight problem. “Children of mothers who increased their employment status during children’s preschool years had over 2.6 times the odds of being overweight/obese at 7 to 11 years of age compared with children of nonworking mothers,” the authors write. They also write that their results “suggest that changing work schedules and increasing work hours over time may be more disruptive to family environments and child weight than maintaining constant levels of employment over time (whether that is not working at all or working full-time).”

The researchers note that within their sample of 602 children, having consistent family routines such as mealtimes and bedtimes were associated with a 61 percent reduction in the odds of being overweight or obese. They also note that youth whose parents live together, whether married or not, tended to have lower odds of being overweight or obese than children living with single mothers.

“The Effect of Maternal Employment on Children’s Academic Performance” Dunifon, Rachel; Hansen, Anne Toft; Nicholson, Sean; Nielsen, Lisbeth Palmhøj. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19364, August 2013.

Rachel Dunifon , the interim dean of Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology, led this study, which explores whether maternal employment improves children’s academic achievement. Dunifon and her colleagues analyze a data set for 135,000 children who were born in Denmark between 1987 and 1992 and followed through the ninth grade.

A key finding: Danish children whose mothers worked during their childhood had higher grade-point averages at age 15 than children whose mothers did not work. And children whose mothers worked between 10 and 19 hours a week had better grades than kids whose mothers worked full-time or only a few hours per week. “The child of a woman who worked between 10 and 19 hours per week while her child was under the age of four is predicted to have a GPA that is 2.6 percent higher than an otherwise similar child whose mother did not work at all,” the authors write.

The researchers suggest their paper “presents evidence of a positive causal linkage between maternal work hours and the GPA of Danish teens. These associations are strongest when mothers work part-time, and among more advantaged mothers, and are not accounted for by mothers’ earnings.”

“Maternal Work Early in the Lives of Children and Its Distal Associations with Achievement and Behavior Problems: A Meta-Analysis” Lucas-Thompson, Rachel G.; Goldberg, Wendy A.; Prause, JoAnn. Psychological Bulletin , November 2010. DOI: 10.1037/a0020875.

This is an analysis of 69 studies that, over the span of five decades, look at the relationship between maternal employment during children’s early years and children’s behavior and academic performance later in life. Overall, the analysis suggests that early maternal employment is not commonly associated with lower academic performance or behavior problems.

The analysis did, however, find differences when comparing different types of families. Early maternal employment was associated with “positive outcomes (i.e., increased achievement and decreased behavior problems) for majority one-parent samples,” explain the three researchers, Rachel G. Lucas-Thompson , now an assistant professor at Colorado State University, and Wendy A. Goldberg and JoAnn Prause of the University of California, Irvine. Early maternal employment was associated with lower achievement within two-parent families and increased behavior problems among study samples comprised of a mix of one- and two-parent families.

The researchers offer this explanation: “The results of this meta-analysis suggest that early maternal employment in sole-provider families may bolster children’s achievement and buffer against problem behaviors, perhaps because of the added financial security and health benefits that accompany employment, as well as improved food, clothing, and shelter because of increased income and the psychological importance of having a role model for achievement and responsible behavior. In contrast, early maternal employment may be detrimental for the behavior of children in two-parent families if the increases in family income do not offset the challenges introduced by maternal employment during children’s early years of life.”

There were differences based on household income as well. For families receiving welfare, the researchers found a link between maternal employment and increased student achievement. For middle- and upper-class families, maternal employment was associated with lower achievement.

The researchers note that they tried to gauge how child-care quality might influence these results. But there weren’t enough studies to allow for a detailed analysis.

Family separation: How does it affect children?

Maternity leave and children’s cognitive and behavioral development

How to tell good research from flawed research: 13 questions journalists should ask

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Prestigious cancer research institute has retracted 7 studies amid controversy over errors

Seven studies from researchers at the prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted over the last two months after a scientist blogger alleged that images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.

The retractions are the latest development in a monthslong controversy around research at the Boston-based institute, which is a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. 

The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and volunteer science sleuth based in Wales, published a scathing post on his blog in January, alleging errors and manipulations of images across dozens of papers produced primarily by Dana-Farber researchers . The institute acknowledged errors and subsequently announced that it had requested six studies to be retracted and asked for corrections in 31 more papers. Dana-Farber also said, however, that a review process for errors had been underway before David’s post. 

Now, at least one more study has been retracted than Dana-Farber initially indicated, and David said he has discovered an additional 30 studies from authors affiliated with the institute that he believes contain errors or image manipulations and therefore deserve scrutiny.

The episode has imperiled the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about one high-profile researcher there, Kenneth Anderson, who is a senior author on six of the seven retracted studies. 

Anderson is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails requesting comment. 

The retractions and new allegations add to a larger, ongoing debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that could lead to misconduct or unintentional mistakes in research. 

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has moved relatively swiftly to seek retractions and corrections. 

“Dana-Farber is deeply committed to a culture of accountability and integrity, and as an academic research and clinical care organization we also prioritize transparency,” Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute’s integrity research officer, said in a statement. “However, we are bound by federal regulations that apply to all academic medical centers funded by the National Institutes of Health among other federal agencies. Therefore, we cannot share details of internal review processes and will not comment on personnel issues.”

The retracted studies were originally published in two journals: One in the Journal of Immunology and six in Cancer Research. Six of the seven focused on multiple myeloma, a form of cancer that develops in plasma cells. Retraction notices indicate that Anderson agreed to the retractions of the papers he authored.

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and longtime image sleuth, reviewed several of the papers’ retraction statements and scientific images for NBC News and said the errors were serious. 

“The ones I’m looking at all have duplicated elements in the photos, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” she said, adding that these elements were “signs of misconduct.” 

Dr.  John Chute, who directs the division of hematology and cellular therapy at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and has contributed to studies about multiple myeloma, said the papers were produced by pioneers in the field, including Anderson. 

“These are people I admire and respect,” he said. “Those were all high-impact papers, meaning they’re highly read and highly cited. By definition, they have had a broad impact on the field.” 

Chute said he did not know the authors personally but had followed their work for a long time.

“Those investigators are some of the leading people in the field of myeloma research and they have paved the way in terms of understanding our biology of the disease,” he said. “The papers they publish lead to all kinds of additional work in that direction. People follow those leads and industry pays attention to that stuff and drug development follows.”

The retractions offer additional evidence for what some science sleuths have been saying for years: The more you look for errors or image manipulation, the more you might find, even at the top levels of science. 

Scientific images in papers are typically used to present evidence of an experiment’s results. Commonly, they show cells or mice; other types of images show key findings like western blots — a laboratory method that identifies proteins — or bands of separated DNA molecules in gels. 

Science sleuths sometimes examine these images for irregular patterns that could indicate errors, duplications or manipulations. Some artificial intelligence companies are training computers to spot these kinds of problems, as well. 

Duplicated images could be a sign of sloppy lab work or data practices. Manipulated images — in which a researcher has modified an image heavily with photo editing tools — could indicate that images have been exaggerated, enhanced or altered in an unethical way that could change how other scientists interpret a study’s findings or scientific meaning. 

Top scientists at big research institutions often run sprawling laboratories with lots of junior scientists. Critics of science research and publishing systems allege that a lack of opportunities for young scientists, limited oversight and pressure to publish splashy papers that can advance careers could incentivize misconduct. 

These critics, along with many science sleuths, allege that errors or sloppiness are too common , that research organizations and authors often ignore concerns when they’re identified, and that the path from complaint to correction is sluggish. 

“When you look at the amount of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is, what has happened to the quality standards we used to think existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on science integrity.

David told NBC News that he had shared some, but not all, of his concerns about additional image issues with Dana-Farber. He added that he had not identified any problems in four of the seven studies that have been retracted. 

“It’s good they’ve picked up stuff that wasn’t in the list,” he said. 

NBC News requested an updated tally of retractions and corrections, but Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber, declined to provide a new list. She said that the numbers could shift and that the institute did not have control over the form, format or timing of corrections. 

“Any tally we give you today might be different tomorrow and will likely be different a week from now or a month from now,” Berlin said. “The point of sharing numbers with the public weeks ago was to make clear to the public that Dana-Farber had taken swift and decisive action with regard to the articles for which a Dana-Farber faculty member was primary author.” 

She added that Dana-Farber was encouraging journals to correct the scientific record as promptly as possible. 

Bik said it was unusual to see a highly regarded U.S. institution have multiple papers retracted. 

“I don’t think I’ve seen many of those,” she said. “In this case, there was a lot of public attention to it and it seems like they’re responding very quickly. It’s unusual, but how it should be.”

Evan Bush is a science reporter for NBC News. He can be reached at [email protected].

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Solo Fathers and Mothers: An Exploration of Well-Being, Social Support and Social Approval

Catherine jones.

1 Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, UK; ku.ca.mac@24ges

Sophie Zadeh

2 Thomas Coram Research Unit, Social Research Institute, UCL Institute of Education, London WC1H 0AA, UK; [email protected]

Vasanti Jadva

3 Institute for Women’s Health, UCL, London WC1E 6HU, UK; [email protected]

Susan Golombok

Associated data.

Data are contained within the article. The whole dataset is not publicly available due to ethical considerations.

Research has begun to explore the experiences of single mothers by choice who choose to start a family alone and do so using donated gametes. However, very little is known about the experiences of single fathers by choice, and even less is known about how their experiences might compare to mothers in the same position. This exploratory study of single mothers ( n = 19) and fathers ( n = 17) by choice examined mental health and social support among mothers who used sperm donation, and fathers who used egg donation and surrogacy, to become parents. Data relating to their reasoning for pursuing solo parenthood, mental health, and social support were analyzed quantitatively. To further explore fathers’ experiences of being a solo parent, a thematic analysis was conducted exploring their descriptions of social responses to their family type. Regarding parental mental health, no statistically significant differences were found between mothers and fathers, and both groups of parents had sought out supportive networks, both before becoming a parent, and as a single parent. Fathers’ responses indicated that they received both supportive and negative reactions, although they generally perceived the majority of interactions to be positive. However, frequent references made by members of the public, or by the media, to their family type being new or different served to reproduce social scripts about normative family types. The study findings, despite the small sample size, contribute to a new understanding of the well-being and experiences of both mothers and fathers who choose to start their family and parent alone.

1. Introduction

In the latter half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the number of single-parent families has steadily increased. Despite a levelling off of this increase in recent years, the total number of single parent families remains high; worldwide, the US has the highest rate of single parent families at around a quarter of all families with children under age 18 [ 1 ]. In the UK, there are 3 million single parent families [ 2 ], representing 15% of families. The majority of single parent households are headed by mothers, although there has been an increase in the number of single father families over time. The proportion of single father households in the UK has remained at around 10% of all single parent families over the last decade [ 2 ]. Single parent families usually result from divorce or separation, or they are formed by unpartnered single mothers. However, in recent years, particularly due to legal changes in access to reproductive technologies worldwide, a small but increasing number of single people have actively decided to start a family and parent alone from the outset.

Single mother families have long faced criticism, not least because of a long-lasting assumption about the perceived ‘need’ of children for a father [ 3 ]. Further, concerns are often raised about children’s adjustment, and parents’ ability to cope with single parenthood, particularly after parental separation or divorce [ 3 ]. Research over the past few decades has indicated that the drop in well-being amongst both mothers and children found in some studies is often attributable to factors associated with divorce rather than single parenthood per se, and in particular, the financial difficulties that may follow divorce or separation [ 4 ]. Difficulties among children in single parent families have additionally been found to be related to parental mental health, rather than single parenthood in itself [ 5 ]. It is also important to note the significant impact of parental conflict, especially sustained conflict, on child adjustment [ 6 , 7 ]. Longitudinal studies have shown that raised difficulties among children following parental relationship breakdown often lessen over time [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that single parent families tend to receive less social support than two-parent families [ 9 ]. Importantly, the challenging circumstances sometimes experienced following divorce are not experienced by all single parent families. The route to single parenthood may play a role in the level of social support received, in experiences of financial strain, and in parent and child adjustment.

Single mothers by choice, who decide to embark on parenthood alone and often do so through assisted reproduction [ 10 ], first became the subject of research a few decades ago. Single mothers and fathers by choice are sometimes termed solo mothers and solo fathers; for the purposes of the present investigation, these terms will be used throughout. Murray and Golombok [ 11 ] conducted the first study directly comparing 27 heterosexual solo mothers, who conceived using donor sperm, with 50 heterosexual partnered mothers, who also conceived using donor sperm. There were no differences between the two groups of mothers in parental well-being and most of the variables assessing parenting quality, including warmth, yet the single mothers demonstrated slightly lower levels of interaction and sensitivity with their very young children. However, these differences were small, with the authors suggesting that the presence of a partner may have supported the coupled mothers in spending more quality time with their child at this early stage. At the follow-up two years later, the findings presented a different picture. The single mothers experienced greater joy and demonstrated less anger toward their toddler, and their children showed lower levels of emotional and behavioural difficulties compared to children with partnered mothers [ 12 ]. It is possible that, after choosing to use donor insemination and become a single parent, the solo mothers felt more positively at this stage compared to the partnered mothers, who used donor insemination after a period of struggling to conceive, and who were less likely to be open about their route to parenthood with others. More recent research, including a multi-method, multi-informant, longitudinal study of solo mothers compared to coupled mothers in the UK, all of whom had used donor conception to conceive their child, produced the same findings—that mothers and children were faring well both when children were in infancy and in middle childhood [ 13 , 14 ]. Both phases of the study indicated that family functioning, such as the level of parenting stress, was more important in predicting child adjustment than the number of parents in the family. Notably, single mothers who choose to parent alone generally report low levels of financial difficulties [ 15 ], in contrast to mothers who are single due to divorce. Studies of solo mothers document that the mothers carefully consider their network of friends and family before embarking on the journey alone, and often have close ties with their parents and other family members, who may assist with childcare [ 16 ]. Although less research has explored LGBTQ+ solo mothers, one longitudinal study found equivalent parenting quality and child adjustment when comparing lesbian solo mothers to heterosexual solo mothers [ 17 ]. Despite the positive outcomes found in research exploring solo mothers and their children, research has also highlighted the problematic portrayals of solo mothers in the media, which firstly serve to perpetuate negative stereotypes, and secondly do not represent the findings of empirical research on this family type [ 18 ].

Only very recently has psychological research begun to explore solo father families. The small body of literature so far, which has explored cisgender gay and heterosexual men pursuing fatherhood as a single parent, suggests that these fathers tend to be highly educated and have high incomes [ 19 , 20 ]. Like solo mothers, solo fathers begin their families either through adoption, or through assisted reproduction. Access to either of these routes to parenthood for men varies greatly between different countries. For example, in much of Europe, men cannot access surrogacy. Although non-commercial surrogacy among men is permitted in the UK, parental orders for single men—which transfer legal parenthood from the surrogate to the intended parent—became legal only in 2019 [ 21 ]. Surrogacy is more easily accessible through clinics and agencies in the US, although having a child in a country other than their country of residence often presents fathers with many practical and legal challenges. Single fathers often undertake extensive paperwork to gain legal recognition as their child’s father, which is emotionally taxing and time intensive [ 20 ].

Social discourse on parenting roles and psychological theories have contributed to assumptions about fathers’ parenting abilities, often positioning fathers as breadwinners and as ‘secondary’ in parenting to mothers. Bowlby’s attachment theory, and his initial writings on the role of maternal love and mothers as primary caregivers [ 22 ], set the scene for a focus on mothering and mother-child relationships in psychological research [ 23 , 24 ]. However, in recent decades, greater attention has been paid to fathers. On the whole, findings on parenting quality and parental influences on child adjustment indicate many more similarities than differences between mothers and fathers, and that fathers have the same capacities for high-quality parenting as do mothers [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Regardless, fathers, particularly those in the primary caregiving role, also face greater stigma and lower social support than mothers [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].

Two key factors that are considered to be important for positive parent and child adjustment are parent mental health (e.g., [ 32 ]), and social support (e.g., [ 33 , 34 ]). These factors are part of the multi-faceted concept of psychological well-being that not only constitutes positive mental health [ 35 ], but also encompasses, for example, support and positive relationships with others [ 36 ]. In terms of the psychological well-being of parents in different family forms, it remains the case that primary caregiver fathers, and single fathers in particular, face stigma and negative social attitudes, which may have an adverse effect on parental well-being, as well as knock-on effects on wider family functioning. In particular, research on minority stress has demonstrated that the stigma and discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals can lead to greater levels of stress, which, consequently, is associated with health difficulties—both physical and psychological [ 37 , 38 ]. Moreover, despite increased legal recognition of LGBTQ+ parents alongside more accepting social attitudes, gay fathers through adoption or surrogacy have reported experiences of stigmatization in recent research [ 39 ]. A study of solo fathers specifically found that increased stigmatization was related to lower sensitivity towards their children by gay and heterosexual single fathers [ 40 ]. However, the study did not compare fathers’ experiences and well-being to that of mothers, and whether or not solo fathers face more challenges than mothers in the same position is therefore not yet known. Considering this, it is important to pay attention to the range of influencing factors, including, but not limited to, gender, sexual orientation, age, financial circumstances, and country of residence, that are likely to shape solo fathers’ experiences. To do so, adopting an intersectional lens is pertinent [ 41 ].

Very few studies have explored the adjustment of single fathers and their children in elective single father families. In a study by Carone et al. [ 19 ], conducted in Italy, which compared the outcomes of single gay fathers through surrogacy, single heterosexual fathers through surrogacy, same-sex male couples through surrogacy, and heterosexual fathers in couples who had used IVF, higher levels of parenting stress were found among both groups of single father families compared to partnered fathers [ 19 ]. However, no differences were found regarding depression or anxiety, parenting quality, parent-child relationship quality, or child adjustment. Overall, the families showed positive adjustment, regardless of the number of parents in the family, or the sexual orientation of the parent(s).

More generally, the findings of research on same-sex male couples who used surrogacy to begin their family point to positive parent and child outcomes. A study conducted in the US that compared 40 same-sex male couples through surrogacy to 55 same-sex female couples who conceived their children using donor sperm, found that the children aged 3–9 years old were well-adjusted across both family types and that children in two-father families experienced lower levels of internalizing behaviours than the children in two-mother families [ 42 ]. In a study conducted across different sites in the UK, the Netherlands and France, no differences were found in parental well-being between same-sex male couples who used surrogacy, same-sex female couples who used sperm donation, and heterosexual couples who used IVF to conceive their child [ 43 ]. Likewise, a study in Israel of same-sex male couples who used surrogacy to start their family found no differences in their psychological well-being compared to heterosexual fathers or to gay fathers who had a child in a heterosexual relationship, yet fathers in same-sex couples through surrogacy expressed greater satisfaction with life and with parenting [ 44 ]. These studies show that, across different contexts, fathers in couples who use surrogacy to start a family and their children are faring well. Nevertheless, little is known about the psychological well-being of single fathers who use surrogacy as a route to parenthood.

The present study, to our knowledge, is the first comparative investigation of solo fathers and solo mothers. As both family types are headed by a single parent, the study enabled the role of parental gender on parental well-being in solo parent families to be examined, controlling for the use of assisted reproduction to start a family. The study also explored differences in reasons for becoming a solo parent and the support available to solo mothers and fathers, both while they were making the decision to become a single parent, and as a single parent. It was hypothesized that solo fathers would experience lower social support than solo mothers due to less accepting social attitudes toward men pursuing parenthood alone [ 45 ]. In addition, the study examined single fathers’ experiences of social reactions to their family type, to better understand the experiences of single men who elect to parent alone, given the current dearth of psychological research on solo fathers. Thus, the study set out to explore the following research questions:

• What are single mothers’ and fathers’ reasons for becoming a solo parent?
• Does parent gender influence the types of support mothers and fathers seek when deciding to become a solo parent, and the level of support they receive as a parent?
• How does the psychological well-being of solo fathers compare to solo mothers?
• What are solo fathers’ experiences of others’ reactions to their family type?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

The sample of solo fathers and solo mothers was drawn from two larger investigations of solo parents by the same research team; from a study of solo mothers in the UK and from an international study of solo fathers. For the purposes of this paper, participants were selected according to the following criteria: (i) the parent had used assisted reproduction to start their family; (ii) the child was in infancy or early childhood; and (iii) the parent had completed questionnaire measures of psychological well-being. Seventeen solo fathers who had formed their family through surrogacy were compared with 19 solo mothers who had started their family through sperm donation. Parents in both family types had become parents alone, although some had begun a relationship following the birth of their child. The single mothers lived in the UK and were recruited through the London Women’s Clinic. All had used their own egg and donor sperm to conceive their child (for full details of the recruitment procedure, see [ 13 ]). The mothers were cisgender women and eighteen mothers identified as heterosexual and one mother as bisexual. The fathers lived in Australia, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US, and their surrogacy arrangements had taken place in a range of countries, most commonly in the US. The fathers had all used their own sperm and gestational surrogacy to start their family. The fathers were cisgender men and fifteen fathers identified as gay, one as heterosexual, and one as asexual. They were recruited through Brilliant Beginnings, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Circle Surrogacy, Growing Families, Family Equality, and through snowball sampling.

The original single mother sample [ 13 ] comprised a larger group of families with children aged 4–8 years-old. As the single father sample had significantly younger children (with some children still in infancy), only those single mothers with a child aged 4 years-old were included in the present study, in order to match the two types of family for child age.

Demographic information

As shown in Table 1 , there was a significant difference between groups in child age, t (34) = −2.93, p = 0.01. Children of mothers were older ( M = 50.37 months) than were children of fathers ( M = 36.12 months). The difference in age between mothers ( M = 44.05 years) and fathers ( M = 47.18 years) did not reach significance, t (34) = 1.90, p = 0.07. There was no difference between family types regarding child gender, the number of children in the family, or the employment status of mothers and fathers. Overall, there were sixteen girls and twenty boys in the sample, single-child families were the most common, and parents were mainly in full-time employment, followed by part-time employment.

Demographic characteristics.

2.2. Procedure

Each parent was interviewed and administered questionnaires by researchers trained in the study techniques. At the start of each interview (conducted either in person or online), an information sheet was provided to each parent, opportunities to ask questions were given, and written informed consent was obtained. Following data collection, the interviews were transcribed verbatim with all identifying information removed. The interviews generally lasted around 2 h. Ethical approval for the research had been obtained from the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. interview.

The interviews covered demographic characteristics of the participants and the participants’ routes to parenthood and experiences as parents (see [ 13 ] for further details); the mothers and fathers were asked many of the same questions, although an additional section of the father interview explored fathers’ experiences of starting a family as a single man, reflecting both the similar and unique concerns of each of the larger research projects. For the present paper, only those aspects relating to the research questions were analyzed. Regarding the demographic questions, at the beginning of the interview, mothers and fathers were asked to provide the gender and age of all their household members. An additional questionnaire was provided at the end of the interview which included financial circumstances. The fathers were also asked the open-ended questions of ‘how do you describe your gender identity?’ and ‘how do you describe your sexual orientation?’.

Timing and Reasons for Becoming a Single Parent

The first section covered parents’ reasons for becoming a single parent. Participants were asked about the age at which they first wanted to become a parent. This was scored as either ‘had always known’ or the specific age. They were then asked about their main reason for becoming a parent at the time they did. This was coded according to a standardized coding scheme with the following categories: (i) I wanted to be a parent; (ii) Timing felt right; (iii) I was getting older/Felt time was running out; (iv) I was financially secure; (v) All my friends were having children; and (vi) Other.

Discussions Leading up to Becoming a Single Parent

During the interview, mothers and fathers were asked whether they had spoken to anyone whilst they were thinking about becoming a solo parent. Their responses were coded as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ regarding discussions with (i) Family; (ii) Friends; and (iii) Others (including support groups and health professionals).

Experiences of Social Reactions to Their Family Type

Fathers were asked two specific questions: ‘How do people usually react when you tell them that you’re a single father?’ followed by ‘Have you experienced any negative reactions from anyone?’. Due to the semi-structured nature of the interview, further follow-up questions and prompts were asked if the interviewer felt more detail was needed to gain a full understanding of participants’ experiences of social responses to their single father status.

2.3.2. Questionnaires

The edinburgh depression scale.

The Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS: [ 46 ]) was administered to evaluate levels of depression. The scale is comprised of 10 items which are summed to produce a score between 0 and 30. Higher scores reflect high levels of depression. Items include ‘I have felt so unhappy that I have had difficulty sleeping’ and ‘Things have been getting on top of me’. Scores greater than 13 are considered to be above the cut-off for high levels of depressive symptoms [ 47 ]. The scale has satisfactory validity and split-half reliability [ 48 ].

The Trait Anxiety Inventory

The Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI: [ 49 ]) was used to assess anxiety. After relevant items have been reversed scored, the scale, consisting of 20 items, produces scores ranging from 20 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. This questionnaire has been shown to discriminate well between clinical and non-clinical groups [ 49 ]. Sample items are ‘I lack self-confidence’ and ‘I feel rested’. A score of greater than 40 is considered to indicate high anxiety [ 50 , 51 ]. However, there is no standardized cut-off point for this measure. A meta-analytic review of the TAI reported adequate average reliability coefficients for both test–retest and internal consistency [ 52 ].

The Parenting Stress Index

The Parenting Stress Index short-form (PSI: [ 53 ]) was used to assess the stress parents may feel regarding their parenting role. The 36 items are summed to give a score ranging from 36 to 180, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of parenting stress. Items include ‘My child smiles at me much less than I expected’ and ‘I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent’. Total scores of over 90 indicate clinically significant levels of parenting stress. The full-length questionnaire has shown good concurrent and predictive validity, and the short form, used in the present study, is highly correlated with the full-length scale [ 53 ].

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; [ 54 ]) was used to evaluate mothers’ and fathers’ perceived social support. The scale is comprised of twelve items assessing the support received from family, friends, and a significant other. The items, scoring from 1 to 7, are averaged, with higher scores representing greater perceived support. Sample items are ‘I get the emotional help and support I need from my family’ and ‘My friends really try to help me’. Scores between 1–2.9 are considered low support, between 3 and 5 as moderate support, and of 5.1 and above are classed as high support [ 54 ]. The scale has demonstrated good validity and test–retest reliability [ 54 ].

Positionality

The interviews and analysis were conducted by two of the authors. The authors are cisgender women who have experience in interviewing LGBTQ+ parents. The authors recognize that, due to their gender identity, they could be considered to have an insider status by the mothers, or outsider status based on other aspects of their identities and experiences. However, the interviewers were likely to have been seen as occupying an outsider status regarding single fathers. The first author, who conducted the analysis, is a non-parent. In line with the principles of reflexive thematic analysis [ 53 ], the researchers continually reflected on their positionality and how this may have shaped ideas or assumptions while analyzing the data.

2.4. Analytical Approach

A convergent mixed method approach was used. Firstly, frequency counts were made for the age at which parents decided to have a child, reasons for becoming a parent, and the people they discussed their decision to become a single parent with. Comparisons were conducted between the two groups for these variables using Fisher’s Exact tests.

Comparisons between solo mothers and solo fathers on the measures of psychological well-being and social support were conducted. The measures which were normally distributed (social support, depression and parenting stress) were analyzed using independent sample t -tests. As anxiety was not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney U-test was used. Correlations were conducted to explore associations between the mental health and social support variables. Subsequently, in order to compare the solo parents’ well-being to general population norms, Fisher’s Exact tests were carried out to compare the proportion of mothers and fathers scoring above the cut-off points for mental health problems and social support.

Fathers’ accounts of their experiences of how people react when they tell others they are a single father were subject to thematic analysis [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Data on this section were missing for two fathers hence fifteen transcripts were analyzed. After familiarizing with the dataset, line-by-line coding was conducted by the first author. Once all the codes had been collated and condensed, the codes (n = 35) were organized into three main themes. Coded extracts were then checked against the themes to assess their suitability and illustrative quotes were selected from across a range of transcripts. The 15-point checklist for establishing quality in reflexive thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke [ 57 ] was used in all stages of the process, from transcription, to analysis, and writing up. Further, the lead author, who conducted the thematic analysis, engaged in peer data analysis with other qualitative researchers.

As the family types differed in the age of the children, correlations were conducted between the age of the child and the outcome variables (presented in Table 2 ). As child age was not significantly associated with any of the outcome measures, it was not controlled for in the analyses.

Correlations between variables.

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.

3.1. Motivations for Solo Parenthood

Most of the fathers ( n = 13, 77%) and almost half of the mothers ( n = 8, 42%) said that they had always known that they had wanted to be a parent, or had thought about it throughout their adult life, rather than remembering a specific age at which they felt a desire to have a child. A Fisher’s Exact test showed that there was a significant difference between mothers and fathers ( p < 0.05), with fathers more likely to state that they had always known and mothers more likely to state an exact age when they had decided they would like to have a baby. For fathers who had stated a specific age, this ranged from 32 to 42 years ( M = 36 years), whereas for mothers, it was between 26 and 43 years ( M = 34 years).

Regarding the main reason for becoming a parent at the time they did, frequency counts and illustrative quotations are presented in Table 3 . A Fisher’s Exact test revealed no significant differences in the reasons given by mothers and fathers. The largest portion of parents fell into the category of ‘I wanted to be a mother/father’. These parents attributed pursuing parenthood alone at that point in their life to a strong desire to become a parent. Time passing, the timing feeling right, or a sense of time running out, were cited as the main reason for several mothers and fathers. As the sample is comprised of parents who started their family later than average, it is within this context that the parents described feeling aware of their age, and ready to begin their family, partially due to concerns that they would not be able to be a biological parent otherwise. For fathers, but not for mothers, financial considerations were cited as a key reason; three fathers described that the main reason for having a child at the time they did was because they felt they had built up the economic resources necessary for surrogacy. That the fathers emphasized monetary preparedness more than the mothers makes sense within the context of the high cost of pursuing surrogacy internationally. For one mother, but no fathers, friends having children influenced her decision, illustrating how, for that mother, watching those around her begin families encouraged her to begin a parenting journey. A minority of parents cited other reasons for choosing to become a single parent at the time they did; for example, due to personal circumstances regarding their wider family situation, or so that their older child (who was conceived within a relationship) could have a sibling.

Reasons for becoming a solo parent.

3.2. Support from Others

The interviews explored the sources of support the mothers and fathers reached out to in the lead-up to becoming a parent. Table 4 shows the number of mothers and fathers who discussed becoming a single parent with either their family, friends, or others (including support groups). Example quotes from mothers and fathers are also presented.

Discussions with others about becoming a solo parent.

A Chi-square comparison between the proportion of mothers and fathers who discussed becoming a single parent with their family was not significant, χ 2 (1) = 0.63, p = 0.43. Similarly, there was no significant difference regarding discussions with friends, χ 2 (1) = 0.39, p = 0.53, or with other people in their lives, χ 2 (1) = 0.42, p = 0.53. This finding suggests that mothers and fathers generally had a similar approach to having discussions with those close to them, or with people they felt would be helpful, such as support groups and professionals. Friends were the people participants turned to the most, followed by family, then other sources of support. Only a minority of parents did not reach out to others in the lead-up to their journey to parenthood; for example, when asked if she had discussions with anyone, one mother explained ‘Um, no. Cos it was all so quick and it was something that I knew I couldn’t actually do without, it was one of those things that wasn’t an option… not having a child.’ However, most of the parents reported seeking out advice or initiating discussions with important people in their lives.

As well as examining support whilst considering parenthood, participants’ perceptions of social support once they had become parents were explored using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (See Table 5 ). An independent samples t -test comparing mothers’ and fathers’ scores for perceived social support found no significant difference between them, t (34) = 0.55, p > 0.05.

Means, SDs, t and p values for comparisons of mothers’ and fathers’ scores on the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.

A Fisher’s Exact test comparing the number of mothers and fathers classed as having low, moderate or high social support was not significant, p > 0.05. The majority of parents were classified as having high levels of support; the percentages of fathers with low, moderate and high social support were 12%, 29% and 59%, respectively, and for mothers, 5%, 32% and 63%, respectively.

Social support was negatively associated with anxiety, r (36) = −0.38, p = 0.02, such that parents with higher levels of social support were likely to report lower levels of anxiety. However, social support was not significantly associated with depression or parenting stress.

3.3. Mental Health

Comparisons were conducted between mothers’ and fathers’ scores for depression, anxiety and parenting stress. The findings are presented in Table 6 . T-tests showed no significant differences regarding depression, t (34) = −1.56, p > 0.05, and parenting stress, t (33) = −7.42, p > 0.05. A Mann–Whitney U-test found no significant difference between families for anxiety, U = 129, p > 0.05. When assessing the proportion of parents above the cut-off for depression, a Fisher’s Exact test was not significant, p > 0.05. Two mothers (11%) and no fathers scored above the cut-off. A Fisher’s Exact test examining the number of parents who scored above the cut-off for anxiety was also not significant, p > 0.05; five mothers (26%) and two fathers (12%) obtained scores above the cut-off. None of the parents scored above the cut-off for clinically relevant levels of parenting stress.

Means, SDs, t and p values comparisons between mothers’ and fathers’ scores on the Edinburgh Depression Scale, the Trait Anxiety Scale and the Parenting Stress Inventory.

Depression was significantly associated with anxiety, r (36) = 0.71, p ≤ 0.001, and parenting stress, r (35) = 0.33, p = 0.05, and anxiety was also significantly associated with parenting stress, r (35) = 0.38, p = 0.03. This indicates that parents who reported raised levels on one of the mental health measures were also more likely to experience other mental health difficulties.

3.4. Fathers’ Experiences of Reactions and Responses to Their Family Type

A thematic analysis of fathers’ reports of experiences of social reactions to being a single parent produced three main themes: (i) joy; (ii) judgement and (iii) intrigue. The three themes were captured in fathers’ reports across the sample as a whole.

The first theme of ‘Joy’ encompasses the reactions fathers typically reported experiencing when others first learned that they were single fathers, and particularly when others understood that they had chosen to become a single father. Many of the fathers felt that when they discussed their family type, they generally received a positive response: “The majority is extremely positive and extremely supportive, you know, people calling to support and to help.” It was quite common for fathers to report that the important people in their lives, such as friends and family, were supportive, such as one father recalling that when people found out about him becoming a parent alone they were “Normally excited and pleased for me”, and that the few who reacted negatively were more likely to be people on the periphery of his social circle. Similarly, another father recalled “I never got any [negative responses] from people that are close to me.”. Another father’s comments exemplified this; “it doesn’t necessarily make a difference to most people that I know what sex or what gender or what a parent is, it’s about being there for your child, the people in my circle have that view”. Some fathers experienced encouragement and approval from those who knew the journey they had been through to become a parent: “they all know that I’ve been wanting to be a father for so many years, you know, so they’re so so genuinely super happy for me”.

3.4.2. Judgement

While reports of direct disapproval or criticism were infrequent, such stigmatizing reactions were sometimes mentioned; one father described a challenging and uncomfortable interaction with a friend, “He could not really approve of it, but he was sort of…there was something a bit…strange and a little offensive in what he was saying, there was a lot of judgement.” Another father felt supported as a single father, but faced prejudice when discussing the route to single parenthood he took; “there’s people that they don’t understand surrogacy, they don’t support it. About being a single dad no, probably everybody is having the same [positive] reaction”. A couple of the fathers also described interactions with public services that had been challenging. However, among the types of negative interactions discussed, strangers were more likely to make judgements than were people who knew the fathers well, with the fathers describing incidents founded in gendered assumptions: “the shop assistant saying oh, is it mother’s day off”. When anticipating negative reactions, sometimes fathers turned to strategies to avoid prejudice, such as concealing their true identity; “I just got to a point where I got sick of people asking where his mum was and that I wasn’t capable and stuff, and…I used to say oh, she’s … working”.

Some fathers also mentioned negativity within the media and on social media: “I’ve been reading things on Facebook from friends that are closed and closed-minded.” Another father commented, “the majority, 90% is supportive, but then there’s been quite a lot…a few of bad complaints… …about me being selfish or something like that but the only bad one really is yeah, from the media.”

3.4.3. Intrigue

The third and final theme to emerge from the fathers’ accounts was intrigue; capturing the fact that the fathers felt that many people viewed their family as novel. Solo fathers differ in several ways from the ‘traditional’ image of the family, comprised of two heterosexual, cisgender parents and their biological children [ 58 ], and by showing admiration and surprise at this, others’ reactions reaffirmed fathers’ deviation from this image. For example, one father said, “I sense kind of a ‘wow’ effect” upon explaining to others that he chose to be a single father. Similarly, another father reported that people “…think I’m brave,”, and another stated that others’ reactions suggested that, “They think you’re brave and they always think it’s a bit strange that a man’s doing it.” These fathers all experienced similar reactions from others that emphasized the rarity of men parenting alone; one father reported that regarding others’ reactions, that “majority it’s wow, really, can you do it like that? Yeah, like astonished…but again, you know, the aftermath of that sort of astonishment is like…that’s amazing and that’s so perfect for you”. Thus, although not explicitly negative, these reactions were sometimes perceived by fathers as emphasizing their non-normative family circumstances. This was reflected in another father’s account, whereby he recalled that one woman said to him, “Well I’ve never heard of that before, I didn’t even know that was possible, how novel”, and the father reported, “She just kept saying how novel.”

Several fathers explained that because the structure of their family was perceived to be uncommon, people often asked questions: about them being a single father, about their child not having a mother, or about the process of surrogacy itself. Some of the fathers explained that they thought some of the questions asked by others were not rooted in criticism; instead, they read them as attempts to gain a better understanding of their route to parenthood and family set-up; “ [Someone] was asking me lots of questions about how and oh and all of this, but it wasn’t negative, it was just people trying to understand and why on earth would I do that.” Similarly, another father said that in his situation, “It’s a baby, as a guy with a baby, you do probably get asked a lot more ‘where’s the mum, where’s the mum?’ and that.” One father reflected on how it had become easier for him now that his child was a little older; “A little baby, everyone’s coming up to you and from the security people at the airport to whatever, you’ve got this baby and you’re a man and there’s something wrong with that picture, it’s not…there’s got to be a woman somewhere, so…people asked questions, whereas now nobody sees it as any different.” The questions fathers were asked were all based on assumptions about mothers as primary caregivers and resulted in fathers having to explain their familial circumstances to others, for example, one father explained that he tells others “He hasn’t got a mother, he’s only got me as a parent.” Occasionally, the fathers decided to respond to such questions in order to highlight family diversity; “My [family member] has taken an exception to the fact that I do actually…sometimes tell people that I’m a single gay dad and…but for me, that’s actually partly sort of…she sees it that I’m painting a target on my back and inviting trouble, I view it that actually it’s me creating visibility so that people are actually aware that families do come in all shapes and sizes.”

4. Discussion

The present study found that mothers and fathers shared similar reasons for becoming a solo parent and sought out similar sources of support to discuss their decision about their route to parenthood. Exploratory quantitative analyses of parental social support, depression, anxiety, and parenting stress also showed comparable results regardless of parent gender, despite the prevailing assumption that solo fathers would face more challenges and feel less accepted than mothers [ 41 ]. Given the limited literature on solo fathers, a thematic analysis was also conducted to explore solo fathers’ experiences of social reactions to their parenting status and family type. Qualitative findings showed that the fathers generally felt they received positive reactions from other people, with negative responses mainly being isolated incidents, yet interactions with the general public were also described as characterized by others’ interest in, and intrigue about, their families. Together, these findings contribute to a better understanding of the experiences of fathers who decide to start a family and parent alone; on the whole, fathers were doing well and did not show any differences in terms of levels of well-being and social support to mothers in the same position. Yet, findings also suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that the media and general public are accepting of family diversity, and in particular, of solo parenting by men.

This study is among the first to explore solo fathers’ reasons for starting a family as a single parent, and to compare these reasons to those of mothers in the same position. The reasons given by mothers and fathers for choosing to embark on parenthood alone largely reflect the reasons cited by solo mothers in previous research [ 15 , 16 ], whereby increasing age and a desire to have a child took precedence over a wish to have a child within a relationship. This demonstrates that, although there is a long-lasting assumption that women have a more active desire to become a parent than do men [ 45 ], these men also prioritized their desire to become a father and went to great lengths to start their family. Importantly, these findings, as well as the findings of research on same-sex male couple families (e.g., [ 26 ]), challenge gendered assumptions about the desire to become a parent.

In keeping with the small body of literature on solo parents [ 13 , 14 , 19 ], the mothers and fathers in this study reported high levels of psychological adjustment and showed no differences compared to general population norms and cut-off points for the measures of well-being. The positive well-being reported by the parents may relate to their fulfilling a long-term desire to become a parent, as exemplified in the finding that most of the parents had wanted to become a parent for many years. Indeed, the parents in the present study described feeling highly motivated to become a single parent and realizing a desire that was of great importance to them. Such findings arguably relate to wider research on couples who use assisted reproduction to start their family, which indicates that, likely due to being highly motivated to become a parent and going to great lengths to do so, these parents often demonstrate resilience to the challenges posed to their well-being during the transition to becoming a parent [ 59 ]. While the sample size was small and, therefore, it is possible that small differences between the groups were not detected, the exploratory analyses suggest that parental gender does not have a significant influence on the mental health of solo parents. Such findings have extended those of previous studies, which have compared fathers’ well-being to that of other fathers [ 19 ] or explored fathers’ reports from a qualitative perspective only [ 60 ]. In addition, the similarly high levels of social support reported by solo mothers and fathers in the present investigation add further weight to the view that solo parents have different experiences to those of single parents due to unforeseen circumstances [ 61 ].

The qualitative findings of this study suggest that single fathers generally experienced social support and social approval. However, in line with other literature on solo parents [ 62 ], they were also found to have faced stigmatizing interactions. These were experienced particularly with strangers. The fathers had also been exposed to negative representations of their family type in the media, in addition to being the target of questioning by others. Such findings paint a nuanced picture of how fathers who choose to start a family alone are perceived socially. They highlight that the fathers, despite receiving support and praise, also experience both distal stressors [ 37 , 38 ] in the form of stigmatizing interactions such as being scrutinized by airport security, and proximal stressors, such as anticipating negative reactions hence concealing their identity as a single father who chose to start a family alone. That some of the fathers, and the fathers’ extended family, felt hesitant about being open about their identity as a single gay father demonstrates the importance of considering intersectional stigma when exploring the experiences of solo parents, in order to better understand how different aspects of the fathers’ identities may influence their parenting experience. Such findings are similar to those from other research; gay fathers in different family constellations have reported stigmatizing interactions [ 39 , 63 ]. In particular, the finding in the present study that the solo fathers experienced both positive and negative reactions reflects that of a study of gay fathers in which the fathers reported simultaneously experiencing stigma and inclusion at their child’s school [ 64 ]. The present study, and previous research, suggests that although solo fathers show positive adjustment, their experiences are still affected by facing prejudice in their parenting role.

Secondly, the findings from the thematic analysis echo previous research on primary caregiver fathers in studies of stay-at-home fathers, who have been shown to have received extensive praise [ 65 ], simultaneously highlighting approval from others, alongside evidencing societal assumptions (i.e., that it is not the norm for fathers to be highly involved parents). Further, the questions the fathers in the present study faced, particularly those relating to where a mother was, suggest that not only is greater social value placed on parenthood within a couple, but that the social acceptability of single parenthood may reflect gendered assumptions. The experiences of the fathers in the current study hence reflect those of a small study of single gay fathers in Israel, in which fathers felt that society placed much greater value on coupled parenthood [ 60 ].

One might expect that the findings relating to stigmatizing interactions in the present study would relate to fathers’ well-being. However, given that the exploratory quantitative findings indicated that fathers were doing well, it seems that these experiences were not consequential for psychological health. While further research with a larger sample of fathers—with more varied social experiences—would be required to explore this quantitatively, a possible explanation for the present findings is that the fathers were resilient to minority stressors due to the resources, both individual and community-based, that they had access to in terms of their individual characteristics, economic situation, and social network [ 66 ]. Indeed, the majority of parents in this study perceived that they had either moderate or high levels of social support. Social support helps individuals to face challenges and can help buffer against stressors [ 67 ], for example, through lessening the impact of parenting stress [ 34 ]. In the context of the present study, it is likely that the social support parents received was beneficial both in terms of parenting stressors, and in buffering against experiences of stigma or discrimination as a single parent. It appears that the fathers had carefully chosen their networks to make sure that they had people in their lives who would support and help them: both in their role as a single father, and in feeling accepted. It is important to note, however, that the sample was comprised of fathers who were affluent, particularly as many had accessed high-cost surrogacy transnationally, and that the mothers were also relatively affluent and financially secure. It has previously been suggested that the positive outcomes demonstrated by solo mother families reflect the greater influence of parental financial situation than family structure on family outcomes [ 68 ]. The findings of the present study may not be replicated in samples with different socioeconomic circumstances where parents do not have the resources to ensure that they will receive support from others, or to choose the form that this support will take.

That mothers and fathers drew upon advice from family, friends, support networks, and professionals in the lead up to their decision to pursue parenthood alone, and then also reported high social support as parents, reflects previous sociological thinking about solo mothers [ 69 ], which conceptualized mothers as actively creating and drawing upon extended networks of kin while raising their children on their own, yet extends previous literature by providing novel information about the support networks sought by solo fathers. The findings of this study further suggest that not only family and friend relationships are important—community sources of support may also be relevant. This was the case for the mothers in the study—based in the UK—and for the fathers—based in a number of different countries. Given that the legal status of solo fathers in such countries may be different, it is noteworthy that levels of interpersonal and professional support were nevertheless generally high. Such findings potentially point to the importance of distinguishing between different forms that stigma [ 70 ] towards solo father families may take, in addition to examining the nuances of their social experiences and social responses to their familial circumstances. Future research needs to further explore fathers’ experiences of interacting with public services, such as healthcare and education providers, to assess the quality of structured, and/or state-funded support, they may be receiving. Although the social experiences of the fathers in this study were generally positive, their experiences of feeling judged and as targets of interest and intrigue would suggest that more needs to be done to facilitate single fathers feeling accepted and represented in societal discourse on the family, which would likely have an important effect on the types of interactions single fathers have, and the way they are treated.

Due to the small sample size, the findings from this study should be interpreted with caution. However, as the first to directly compare parental well-being and social support between solo fathers and solo mothers, this study provides new insight into the question of whether gender plays a role in the adjustment of parents who start a family alone. Aside from the small sample size, there are other limitations which are worth reflection. It is important to note that the research, like previous studies, only included cisgender parents. The majority of the fathers identified as gay andthe majority of the mothers identified as heterosexual, so little is known about the experiences of solo parents who are trans, or non-binary, or bisexual. Only one study so far has explored the experiences of trans single parents [ 71 ]. In addition, the two samples in the present study were not perfectly matched, not only because of the lower average age of children in the solo father families, but also because the mothers were recruited in the UK and the fathers internationally. The cost of treatment for surrogacy varies drastically between countries, as do legislation and social attitudes toward different types of families. Hence, samples from the same country that directly compare single mothers and fathers who choose to start a family and parent alone should be the focus of future inquiries. Lastly, future research should explore the adjustment of children in solo father families and child perspectives of their family type.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the findings of this study indicate that solo fathers and mothers accessed the same types of support, had similar reasons for becoming solo parents, and showed no differences in their mental health, or perceived social support. Concerning fathers’ experiences of social reactions to their family type, the findings showed that the fathers simultaneously experienced social approval and stigma. However, they showed resilience to the negative reactions of others.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the families who took part in the research.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust [Grant numbers 097857/Z/11/Z and 208013/Z/17/Z].

Author Contributions

All four authors significantly contributed to the manuscript. Specifically, S.G., S.Z. and V.J. were involved in the conceptualization and funding acquisition, data were collected by S.Z. and C.J., C.J. analyzed the data and drafted the initial manuscript, and all four authors contributed to reading and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The studies were reviewed and given ethical approval by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.