Attachment & Human Development

ISSN: 1461-6734 (Print) 1469-2988 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20

Adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and child

attachment and behavior problems

Éric Alain Feugé, Chantal Cyr, Louise Cossette & Danielle Julien

To cite this article: Éric Alain Feugé, Chantal Cyr, Louise Cossette & Danielle Julien (2018):
Adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment and behavior problems, Attachment & Human
Development, DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2018.1557224

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2018.1557224

Published online: 20 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rahd20
ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2018.1557224

Adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment and

behavior problems
Éric Alain Feugé, Chantal Cyr, Louise Cossette and Danielle Julien
Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment security and externalizing Received 8 January 2018
and internalizing problems were investigated among families Accepted 5 December 2018
headed by two adoptive gay fathers. A sample of 68 fathers and KEYWORDS
their 34 children aged 1–6 years participated in the study. Fathers Adoption; gay fathers;
completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Child sensitivity; attachment;
Behavior Checklist. Parental sensitivity and child attachment secur- behavior problems
ity were assessed by independent coders with Q-sort methodol-
ogy during parent–child interactions at home. Results indicate that
few children had low attachment security scores and behavior
problems in the clinical range. Fathers’ sensitivity within parenting
couples appeared similarly high, as did children’s attachment
security. In contrast to the weak association found in past studies
among heterosexual fathers, a significant moderate correlation
was found between paternal sensitivity and child attachment
security. Also, children with higher levels of attachment security
had less externalizing problems.

An increasing number of gay men are now becoming parents through domestic adop-
tion (Jennings, Mellish, Tasker, Lamb, & Golombok, 2014; L’Archevêque & Julien, 2013),
a context in which there is no maternal figure. Adoptive gay fathers face many chal-
lenges. Because they are disrupting traditional gender roles by assuming tasks that are
culturally considered feminine, adoptive gay fathers often elicit strong resistance.
Moreover, as it is the case for other adoptive families, because adopted children have
often been exposed prior to adoption to various forms of maltreatment, neglect, or
prenatal substance abuse, they are likely to show more behavior problems and insecure
attachment than biological children (Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2009). Recent studies have
focused on adoptive gay fathers’ families (e.g. Farr & Patterson, 2013; Goldberg, Black,
Manley, & Frost, 2017; Golombok et al., 2014), but none of them have specifically
examined child attachment to adoptive gay fathers. During the infancy and preschool
periods, attachment security has been shown to be a reliable predictor of child socio-
emotional functioning and parental sensitivity is a key component of the quality of the
attachment relationship (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). The main objective of
this study was to examine the associations between adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and
child attachment and behavior problems.

CONTACT Éric Alain Feugé [email protected] Department of psychology, Université du Québec à

Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Child adaptation following adoption

In Canada, gay fathers can adopt children locally through the Child Protection Services
(CPS) by becoming a foster-to-adopt family. Generally, children who are being removed
from their biological parents by CPS can either be placed into a temporary foster family
or a foster-to-adopt family. Foster-to-adopt children (domestic adoption) often continue
to see their biological parents under supervised visits and adoption may take several
months to a few years to be finalized. In some rare cases, children even end up returning
to their biological parents. Many of these children were exposed to important risk
factors prior to adoption such as neglect, maltreatment, prenatal alcohol or drug
exposure, multiple placements, and abandonment (Barth & Needell, 1996; MacLean &
Guinon, 2003). At arrival in their adoptive family, they often show severe health and
behavior problems, and delays in motor, cognitive, and social development (van
IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2006). According to Juffer and van IJzendoorn’s (2009) meta-
analysis, children from domestic adoption also show more externalizing and internaliz-
ing problems in the years following adoption than international adoptees, especially in
case of late-adopted children (>3 years; Barber, Delfabbro, & Cooper, 2001; Howe, 1997;
Lawrence, Carlson, & Egeland, 2006; Tarren-Sweeney, 2008).
Children from domestic adoption are also at greater risk of exhibiting insecure
attachment behaviors than their non-adopted peers in the year following adoption,
especially if they were adopted after their first birthday (van den Dries, Juffer, van
IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2009). Stovall and Dozier (2000) reported that
children with a history of abuse and adopted at a young age (before 12 months)
managed to develop a secure attachment with a sensitive foster parent (Stovall &
Dozier, 2000). This finding is important because the child attachment relationship, as
one of the core aspects of development during infancy, is highly predictive of mental
health and functioning (Sroufe et al., 2005). However, children adopted after the age of
12 months were less likely to have a secure attachment, even when their caregiver was
sensitive or showing an autonomous (secure) attachment state of mind (Stovall & Dozier,
2000). These older children with an insecure attachment tended to elicit rejection
behaviors from their caregivers.
According to Kaniuk, Steele, and Hodges (2004), late-placed children are also more
likely than early-placed children to exhibit avoidance and disengagement in the
first year after placement, but after 2 years in their foster family they are increasingly
able to show representations of adults as being helpful and comforting. However, in
comparison with the early-placed group, this progress was only found for the youngest
(4 years old at placement) of the late-adopted group. Steele, Hodges, Kaniuk, Hillman,
and Asquith (2008) also found in a prior study with a sub-group of the same sample that
adoptive mothers with an insecure attachment state of mind were more inclined to have
children portraying higher levels of aggressiveness during a story-completion task.
Nevertheless, when the other parent (mother or father) was autonomous-secure with
regard to attachment, children’s levels of insecurity, aggression, and disorganization
were all lower 2 years after placement. Both child age at adoption and caregivers’ state
of mind may influence children’s adjustment after placement.
It has been suggested that in the first weeks or months following their placement,
children tend to repeat the behavior patterns they have acquired with their biological
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3

parents, such as avoidance or control of the parental figure (Dozier & Sepulveda,
2004; Dubois-Comtois et al., 2015). Such behaviors are challenging for foster or
adoptive parents, as they may feel rejected by the child or overwhelmed by behavior
problems. Children who were maltreated have also learned to suppress the expres-
sion of attachment needs and foster/adoptive parents may misinterpret such beha-
viors as signs of good adjustment. Given the numerous problems shown by foster
and adopted children, several authors have suggested that a good enough degree of
parental sensitivity is not sufficient to answer an adopted child’s needs nor for this
child to develop a secure attachment to the caregiver (Dozier & Sepulveda, 2004;
Dubois-Comtois, Cyr, Vandal, & Moss, 2013). According to these authors, parents of
foster and adoptive families should be highly sensitive, have a good knowledge of
child development, and possess the skills to modify, rather than consolidate, the
child’s potentially insecure attachment pattern. Adopted children’s problems thus add
to the challenges faced by adoptive gay fathers.

Fathers’ sensitivity, child attachment, and social adjustment

Among heterosexual parent families, the association between maternal sensitivity and
child attachment relationship has been confirmed in many correlational and experimental
studies. Recent meta-analyses report rs ranging between .24 and .39 for the association
between maternal sensitivity (various measures including the MBQS) and child attach-
ment (AQS or SSP; see Cadman, Diamond, & Fearon, 2018; Zeegers, Colonnesi, Stams, &
Meins, 2017). However, we know little on paternal sensitivity. Although it has long been
recognized that mother–child interaction alone cannot explain a child’s social and emo-
tional development and that more attention should be paid to other caregivers with
whom the child interacts on a regular basis (Lamb, 1997), developmental psychology has
neglected the contribution of fathers to child development (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda,
Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000). Fathers can be an attachment figure just as mothers are
(e.g. Brown, McBride, Shin, & Bost, 2007; Caldera, 2004; Goodsell & Meldrum, 2010).
However, too few studies have investigated the link between the quality of father–child
interaction and child attachment. Results of a meta-analysis (k = 8) reveal a significant but
weak correlation between fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment security (r = .13;
Lucassen et al., 2011). When fathers’ sensitivity and stimulation were measured during
a play interaction, a type of activity traditionally associated with the father–child relation-
ship, the association with attachment security was again significant, but still very weak.
Sensitivity among heterosexual fathers has been associated with child social adjustment in
many studies (e.g. Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008; Owens & Shaw, 2003; Petitclerc & Tremblay,
2009; Trautmann-Villalba, Gschwendt, Schmidt, & Laucht, 2006). More specifically, paternal
sensitivity has been shown to predict lower levels of behavior problems in childhood (Amato
& Rivera, 1999; Trautmann-Villalba et al., 2006). It is also well established among children of
heterosexual parents that attachment insecurity is a predictor of child behavior problems.
A meta-analysis including 60 studies found a significant, small to medium effect size, linking
insecure attachment and internalizing behavior (Madigan, Atkinson, Laurin, & Benoit, 2013).
Another meta-analysis including 69 studies found a significant moderate association between
attachment insecurity and externalizing problems in children 12 years old or younger (Fearon,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010).
4 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Numerous studies have shown that the socioemotional development of children from
same sex parent families (lesbian and gay parents) do not significantly differ from those
raised by heterosexual parents (e.g. Crowl, Ahn, & Baker, 2008; Julien, 2003; Patterson,
2000, 2017; Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, 2007; Tasker, 2005; Vecho & Schneider,
2005). Golombok et al. (2014) even found less externalizing problems among children
raised by adoptive gay fathers than among children from heterosexual parent families
but no differences with children of lesbian mothers. A recent meta-analysis (k = 10) also
found better socioemotional outcomes among children of gay fathers than among
children of heterosexual parents (Miller, Kors, & Macfie, 2017). According to these
authors, the higher socioeconomic status of gay fathers, better preparedness for father-
hood, and more egalitarian parenting roles could explain these positive outcomes.
Although adoptive gay fathers have been found to share parenting roles as equally as
lesbian mothers (Goldberg, Smith, & Perry-Jenkins, 2012), as suggested by Golombok
et al. (2014), the stringent screening process for gay couples who wish to adopt could
lead to higher levels of commitment to parenting among adoptive gay fathers than
among adoptive lesbian mothers or heterosexual parents. Moreover, adoption is less
likely to be a second choice for gay fathers in their quest for a child unlike lesbian
mothers or heterosexual couples who may have experienced infertility and failed fertility
treatments (Golombok et al., 2014).
Regarding specifically children adopted by gay fathers, a number of studies have
found high levels of good adjustment among children adopted by gay fathers (Averett,
Nalavany, & Ryan, 2009; Erich, Leung, & Kindle, 2005; Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, 2010;
Ryan, 2007). Moreover, Golombok et al. (2014) and Miller et al. (2017) reported less child
externalizing problems among families of adoptive gay fathers than among heterosexual
parent families. Golombok et al. (2014) also reported more positive parent–child inter-
action among adoptive gay fathers’ families (e.g. more parental warmth and respon-
siveness, and less disciplinary aggression) than among heterosexual families. As
suggested by the authors, the stringent screening process of adoptive gay couples
may account for these findings. Among families headed by adoptive gay fathers,
associations between fathers’ sensitivity, child attachment security, and psychosocial
adjustment have never been explored but we would expect these variables to be
positively correlated. We may also expect to find high levels of sensitivity among
adoptive gay fathers.

The current study

According to the integrative model (van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999; van IJzendoorn, Sagi, &
Lambermon, 1992), all child attachment relationships must be taken into account in
order to properly evaluate their impact on developmental outcomes. As it is the case for
children of heterosexual parents, those adopted by gay fathers could greatly benefit
from the relationship they establish with both of their parents. Hence, the main objec-
tive of this study was to investigate the contributing factors to attachment security and
social adjustment of children adopted by gay fathers by considering their relationship to
both fathers. Towards that aim, on a more descriptive level, we first compared both
fathers’ levels of sensitivity and levels of their child attachment security. Second, we
examined the association between adoptive gay fathers’ sensitivity and child
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 5

attachment security. Third, we examined whether fathers’ sensitivity and attachment

security were related to child externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Children’s age at
assessment, number of former placements, and time spent in the adoptive family were
considered in our analyses as control variables. We hypothesized that fathers’ sensitivity
and child attachment security will be negatively correlated to internalizing and externa-
lizing behavior symptoms.

Method
Participants
A sample of 34 families, including 68 gay fathers and their 34 children, were recruited from
across the province of Québec. Families were recruited with the help of the CPS, the LGBT
Family Coalition, the Chaire de recherche sur l’homophobie at UQAM, and with the
collaboration of the participating families. To be eligible, men had to identify as gay,
speak either French or English, and have at least one adopted child between 1 and
6 years of age living with them since at least 6 months. A period of 3 months seems
necessary and sufficient to allow children and parents to establish an attachment relation-
ship with their new parent, whether or not the latter is secure (Dozier et al., 2001). We only
included children whose adoption was completed. None of the participating families had
more than one child for whom the adoption process was completed.
The fathers ranged in age from 30 to 54 years with a mean age of 39.87 years
(SD = 5.43). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the sociodemographic variables.
Most fathers were Caucasian (93.3%), from the province of Quebec (66%), and highly
educated (78.2% with a university degree). Most of the fathers (92.8%) were employed
full-time, one father was unemployed, and one on a paternity leave. Fathers’ income was
substantially higher (median annual individual income between $60,000 and $69,999)
than most Quebecers’, whose median income at the time of the study was $39,312
(Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2013). Almost all families (94%) lived in large cities
(Montréal, Québec city, etc.) or in suburban areas close to large cities. Parents had been
together for an average of 12.65 years (SD = 4.19, range = 5 to 25 years) prior to bringing
a child into their family. The majority of the families (51%) had only one child.
As reported in a prior study, adoptive gay fathers reported a rather egalitarian
division of tasks and high levels of involvement in various areas of childcare, but paired
analyses showed a significant difference in involvement between both fathers within
each family (Feugé, Cossette, Cyr, & Julien, 2018). Based on self-assessment on a parental
involvement scale, we determined a primary and a secondary caregiver (see Feugé et al.,
2018). The father with the highest score was referred to as the primary caregiver and his
partner as the secondary caregiver. The mean score of overall involvement of the less
involved fathers (M = 3.9, SD = .32) was more than one standard deviation below that of
the most involved fathers (M = 4.28, SD = .25). The same procedure was used to
determine the primary and the secondary caregivers in the current study.
At time of assessment (see Table 2), children’s mean age was 3.93 years (SD = 1.6,
range = 1.2 to 6.66). They had been living with their adoptive fathers for at least
8 months (M = 2.97 years, SD = 1.45). Their mean age upon arrival in the family was
1.09 years (SD = 1.00) and the number of former placements was 1.32 (SD = .92). There
6 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of gay fathers.

Total sample Primary caregiver Secondary caregiver
Father variables n= 68 n = 34 n = 34
M (SD) or % M (SD) or % M (SD) or %
Age (years) 38.87 (5.43) 38.65 (5.64) 38.94 (5.30)
Individual income (K) 76.5 (36.65) 65 (24.23) 88.3 (44.01)
Hours worked per week 36.81 (8.53) 36.13 37.25 (8.40)
Work full-time (%) 92.8 88.2 97.1
Education (% university 78.2 70.6 85.3
degree)
Level of education (%)
High school 7.2 11.8 11.7
Some college 14.4 17.6 2.9
Bachelor’s degree 31.9 26.5 38.2
Graduate degree 46.3 44.1 47.1
Race/ethnicity (% White) 95.58 97.05 94.11
Country of origin (%)
Québec, Canada 71.52 70.59 70.59
Canada (excluding 1.47 0 2.94
Québec)
France 22.6 26.47 20.59
Other 4.41 2.94 5.88
Length of relationship (years) 12.65 (4.19) – –
Number of children per family (%)
One child 51 – –
Two children 46 – –
Three children or more 3 – –
Relationship status (%)
Married 36.2 – –
Common-law 58.0 – –
relationship
Civil union 4.3 – –
Separated 1.4 – –
Note: Full-time work was defined as working an average of 30 h or more per week.

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of children.

Total sample
Child variables n = 34
M (SD) or %
Age (years) 3.93 (1.6)
Gender
Male 67%
Female 33%
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian 64%
Black or Mixed 26%
Asian 3%
Others 7%
Age upon arrival 1.09 (1.00)
0–3 months 27.50%
3–12 months 31.90%
1–2 years 27.60%
2–4 years 13%
Time spent in the adoptive family (years) 2.97 (1.45)
Number of former placements 1.32 (.92)

were significantly more boys (67%) than girls, χ2(1, N = 34) = 7.67, p < .01. Most of the
children (59.4%) arrived in their adoptive families during their first year of life (28% were
less than 3 months). The majority were Caucasian (64%).
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 7

Measures
Sociodemographic questionnaire
This questionnaire includes questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of the
families (fathers’ and child’s age, fathers’ level of education, occupational status, income,
etc.). Other questions were related to the child’s adoption (age upon adoption, number
of previous placements, time spent in the adoptive family).

Child socioemotional adjustment

The Child Behavior CheckList (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) is one of the most widely
used tools for assessing child behavior problems and has been extensively used with
adopted children (Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2009). Two forms for different age groups are
available and were used in this study: a 1½- to 5-year-old form (99 items) and a 6- to 18-year-
old form (112 items). Fathers had to answer each item by referring to the child’s behavior in
the last 2 months using a three-point Likert scale: does not describe my child, sometimes
describes my child, or often/always describes my child. The CBCL provides scores for eight
specific syndromes and a total problem score based on the combination of three subscales:
internalizing problems (anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed, somatic complaints;
Cronbach’s alpha = .73), externalizing problems (rule-breaking behavior, aggressive beha-
vior; Cronbach’s alpha = .90), and other problems (thought problems, social problems, and
attention problems). Internalizing and externalizing standardized t-scores were used in the
analyses. Clinical cut-off groups (scores ≥63) can also be generated using norms suggested
by the CBCL (T-scores). Both questionnaires show excellent psychometric qualities. Test–
retest reliability was established by the authors (short-term 8-day retest: .90 for internalizing
and .87 for externalizing scales, and long-term 12-month retest: .76 for internalizing and .66
for externalizing scales, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). The authors also showed that almost
all the CBCL scales discriminate between clinical and non-referred children, indicating
excellent content validity.

Parental sensitivity
The Maternal Behavior Q-Sort (MBQS; Pederson & Moran, 1995) is a 90-item instrument used
to assess parental sensitivity during parent–child interactions at home. A Q-Sort is a form of
questionnaire with items proposed on a set of cards. Each item is classified by an observer
according to its relevance with the caregiver’s actual behaviors. Items describe the parent’s
tendency to recognize and answer child signals and needs. The sensitivity dimensions
include caregiver’s affects, interactive behaviors with the child, communication skills with
the child, and attention to the child. Each statement has a criterion score. Correlations are
then computed between the observer’s sort and a criterion sort established for
a prototypically sensitive and responsive caregiver by a committee of experts. Final scores
vary from −1.0 (least sensitive/responsive) to 1.0 (prototypically sensitive/responsive). The
MBQS is one of the most valid indicators of maternal sensitivity in relation to attachment
(Pederson, Gleason, Moran, & Bento, 1998; van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven, 2004) and many studies have demonstrated its validity
and fidelity (e.g. Pederson et al., 1998; Tarabulsy, Avgoustis, Phillips, Pederson, & Moran,
1997; Tarabulsy et al., 2003). This instrument has previously been used with preschoolers
and children up to 7 years of age, as well as with internationally and nationally adopted
8 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

children, and foster care children (Bernier, Matte-Gagné, Bélanger, & Whipple, 2014;
Colonnesi et al., 2013; Kim & Kim, 2009; Moss et al., 2011). Atkinson et al. (2000) showed
that the MBQS, compared with several other measures of maternal sensitivity, is the most
strongly associated with attachment security measures.
In the present study, the short version of 25 items was used (MBQS-Short). This
version enables to assess sensitivity from short video sequences (Poitras & Tarabulsy,
2017; Tarabulsy et al., 2009; Varela Pulido, 2016). The coding procedure is the same as
the one used for the long version. The short and long French versions of the MBQS have
been validated with heterosexual fathers from normative and high-risk populations, as
well as with heterosexual adoptive fathers (Boisclair, 2000; Colonnesi et al., 2013; Varela
Pulido, 2016). In a recent study based on the short-version, the authors of the MBQS
have set a threshold of .30 for sensitivity predicting security (Pederson, Bailey, Tarabulsy,
Bento, & Moran, 2014). Using the short or long version with primary caregivers recruited
in Canadian cities, the authors of the MBQS and their colleagues reported mean MBQS
sensitivity scores ranging between .34 and .63 for parents from the normative popula-
tion (Pederson et al., 2014; Pederson & Moran, 1996) and between .14 and .27 for at-risk
parents, such as adolescent mothers or maltreating mothers (Moran, Forbes, Evans,
Tarabulsy, & Madigan, 2008; Moss et al., 2011).
For this sample, the video recordings of free play sequences (20 m) at home were
coded by three research assistants. These assistants were blind to other study variables
and none of them coded the two fathers of the same child. Intraclass correlations,
calculated on 20% of the sample, showed excellent inter-judge reliability, ricc = .93.

The Attachment Q-Sort

(Waters & Deane, 1985) was used to assess children’s attachment security to their
caregivers. The French version of the Attachment Q-Sort has been shown to predict
the secure and insecure attachment patterns observed in the Strange Situation
(Pierrhumbert, Muhlemann, Antonietti, Sieye, & Halfon, 1995). The Q-Sort contains 90-
item cards covering a wide range of attachment and exploration behaviors that a child
may manifest in various contexts. Each item was classified by an observer according to
its degree of relevance with the child’s actual attachment and exploration behaviors.
A security score was obtained by computing a correlation between child’s score on each
of the 90 cards and that of a prototypic secure child, as established by a group of
experts (Waters & Deane, 1985). This score ranges from −1 (insecure avoidance and
resistance) to 1 (secure).
According to the latest meta-analyses, the AQS shows satisfactory convergent, discri-
minant, and predictive validity (Cadman et al., 2018; van IJzendoorn et al., 2004). In 28
normative samples (n = 2516), van IJzendoorn et al. (2004) found an average observer AQS
security score of .32. Recently, Cadman et al. (2018) updated this meta-analysis and found
in 145 samples of non-clinical children (n = 12,949) an average observer AQS score of .37
and a significantly lower average score of .28 in 39 clinical samples of children (n = 2230).
Past studies have used a score of about .32 as the threshold for attachment security
(Colonnesi et al., 2013; Howes, Rodning, Galluzzo, & Meyers, 1990; van Bakel & Riksen-
Walraven, 2004). In the current study, child attachment was coded after two home visits
(90 m), one for each father–child dyad. Both visits were led and coded by a different
research assistant. All home visits were video-recorded and a third research assistant, blind
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 9

to other study variables, coded child attachment from the video recordings for reliability
purposes. Inter-rated reliability was computed on 20% of the visits and children, and the
intraclass correlation coefficient was found to be excellent, ricc = .94.

Procedure
Most families were recruited with the help of the Centres Jeunesse du Québec. Social
workers first contacted eligible fathers to tell them about the study. A project coordi-
nator then contacted each interested family to explain the research procedure in details.
If interested, a written consent form was sent to the fathers for their own and child’s
participation. Most of the fathers contacted (82%) have agreed to participate. Other
families were recruited through the LGBT Family Coalition and the Chaire de recherche
sur l’Homophobie at UQAM via Internet forum, e-mail, social media, and with the
collaboration of the participating families. A $40 gift certificate was given to each
participating family. The project was approved by the ethics committee of the Centre
Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’île-de-Montréal.
Fathers completed questionnaires sent by mail or e-mail (e.g. sociodemographic
questionnaire). Each father was also observed while interacting with his child at home
in a structured situation based on the London’s protocole (Pederson & Moran, 1996).
According to van IJzendoorn et al. (2004), studies using such an observation protocol in
the child’s natural environment are among the best to predict attachment security
between (heterosexual) parents and their children. During the first visit, the child and
only one of the fathers took part in the activities. The second father was observed with
his child by a different experimenter in a second visit about 2 weeks later. Each visit
lasted approximately 1.5 h and was entirely filmed for reliability purposes. The visit was
divided into six segments: (1) the arrival, (2) a short period of discussion with the father
about child’s history and characteristics (25 m), (3) a father–child semi-structured activity
with age-appropriate toys provided by the research team (20 m), (4) the completion of
the CBCL by the father while the child is playing alone (this sequence also represents
a divided attention task for the father), (5) a father–child snacktime representing a daily
unstructured activity, and (6) the departure. Following the visit, parental sensitivity was
assessed using segment 3. The child-to-father attachment relationship was measured
using all six segments.

Results
Four measures were not normally distributed (primary caregiver’s level of education,
income, number of hours in paid work, and sensitivity for both fathers) and they were
either square rooted or log transformed.

Descriptive analyses for study variables

Sensitivity
The mean scores of paternal sensitivity (see Table 3) were .56 (SD = .34, range = −.83 to
.86) for primary caregivers and .50 (SD = .40, range = −.56 to .84) for secondary
caregivers. A paired t-test revealed that primary caregivers’ level of sensitivity was not
10 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and percentages for paternal sensitivity, child attachment, and
behavior problems as a function of primary and secondary caregivers.
Total sample Primary caregiver Secondary caregiver
Variables n = 68 n = 34 n = 34 Paired t-test or McNemar’s
M (SD) or % M (SD) or % M (SD) or % testa
Paternal sensitivity .53 (.37) .56 (.34) .50 (.40) .371
Child attachment security .41 (.14) .40 (.15) .43 (.13) −.948
Child behavior problems
Internalizing 48.68 (10.22) 49.17 (8.87) 48.64 (9.73) 0.32
% children above clinical 5.9%b 2.9% 2.9% 0.00a
level
Externalizing 48.02 (10.32) 48.52 (9.76) 47.58 (8.48) 1.06
% children above clinical 5.9%b 5.9% 2.9% 1.00a
level
a
Coefficient for the McNemar’s test.
b
According to at least one of the two fathers.

significantly different from secondary caregivers’, t(34) = .371, p = .71. For the sample as
a whole, which included all 68 fathers, parental sensitivity mean score was .53 (SD = .37,
range = −.83 to .86). No significant differences were found between our fathers’ mean
scores of sensitivity and the mean scores of sensitivity reported in other studies using
the same instruments (including primary caregivers from the normative population in
major Canadian cities or adoptive/foster care fathers observed during free-play activ-
ities), zs between −.99 and 1.34 (see Table 4). More than 88% of our fathers were above
the threshold of .30 as set by Pederson et al. (2014).

Child attachment
The mean scores of child attachment security were .40 (SD = .15, range = .00 to .60) for
primary caregivers and .43 (SD = .13, range = −.16 to .70) for secondary caregivers.
A paired t-test revealed that attachment security scores to primary and secondary
caregivers were not significantly different, t(34) = −.95, p = .35. For the sample as
a whole, which included all 68 child–father dyads, children’s mean score of attachment
security was .41 (SD = .14, range = .00 to .69). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for
child attachment security. No significant differences were found between our children’s
AQS scores and scores reported in other studies using the same instrument (including
children between 7 and 42 months of age from the normative population in major
Canadian cities or adopted/foster care children), zs between −.66 and .62 (see Table 4).
Using the attachment security threshold of .32, 75% of our children were above this cut-
off score.

Child socioemotional adjustment

Paired sample t-tests revealed no significant differences between primary and secondary
caregivers’ perception of their child’s internalizing, t(34) = .325, p = .75, and externalizing
symptoms, t(34) = 1.06, p = .30. Only a few fathers reported behavior problems in the
clinical range. For internalizing problems, 5.9% of children were in the clinical range
according to at least one of the two fathers and 20.6% were in the borderline clinical
range. For externalizing problems, 5.9% of children were in the clinical range and 8.8% in
Table 4. Means and standard deviations for paternal sensitivity and child attachment scores of the current sample compared to those of other studies using the
same instruments.
Security and sensitivity mean scores
Current sample Normative samples Foster-to-adopt sample
n = 68 Cadman et al. (2018) meta-analysis Pederson et al. (2014)a,b Tarabulsy et al. (2003)a Bernier et al. (2014)a Pallanca (2008)a
Variables
M (SD) n = 12,949 n = 64 n = 35 n = 130 n = 53
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Sensitivity MBQS .53c (.37) – .34 (.51) .52 (.39) .63 (.30) .60 (.29)
Child attachment AQS .41d (.14) .37 – – .49 (.26) .37 (.30)
a
Individual studies including parents recruited in major cities of Canada.
b
Sensitivity was coded using the short version of the MBQS and based on video-recordings.
c
No significant differences were found between our fathers’ mean sensitivity scores and scores from the meta-analyses and other studies, zs between −.99 and 1.34.
d
No significant differences were found between our children’s scores of AQS and children’s scores from other studies, zs between −.66 and .62.
ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
11
12 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

the borderline clinical range. Results of McNemar’s tests show no significant differences
in the number of primary and secondary caregivers reporting internalizing or externaliz-
ing problems in the clinical range, χ2(1) = 0.00, p = 1.00; χ2(1) = 1.00, p = .62.
In order to consider both fathers’ scores in one analysis, children’s behavior problems were
further compared using a three-group variable which we computed in the following way: (1)
a group of children with clinical and borderline problems according to both fathers, (2) a group
of children with clinical or borderline problems according to one of the fathers, and (3) a group
of children with no reports of clinical or borderline problems. Results of one sample χ2
indicated significant differences between fathers’ reports of internalizing, χ2(1,
N = 34) = 26.89,p < .001, and externalizing problems, χ2(1, N = 34) = 36.94, p < .001. Table 3
presents the means and standard deviation of children’s internalizing and externalizing
symptoms as a function of primary and secondary caregivers and the percentages of children
in the clinical range.

Preliminary analyses
Covariates in main analyses
To identify potential covariates, we examined the correlations between sociodemo-
graphic variables and outcome measures (security of attachment, internalizing and
externalizing symptoms). Neither fathers’ age, education, income, nor number of hours
in paid work were significantly associated with child attachment, internalizing, or
externalizing symptoms, rs between −.01 and .20. However, fathers’ age was related to
sensitivity, with older fathers being more sensitive, r(68) = .26, p < .05. Adoption
variables (children’s age upon arrival, number of former placements, time spent in the
adoptive family) and children’s age at assessment and gender were not significantly
related to outcome measures, rs between −.21 and .21.

Main analyses
Subsequent analyses were conducted using multilevel models, which consider data
collected at different levels of analysis (e.g. father and child) that can be studied
without violating assumptions of independence in linear multiple regressions. In this
study, the first-level units were children’s two fathers, for a total of 68 fathers.
The second-level units were the 34 children. In our case, the two fathers’ evaluations
of the same child might not be independent of one another. Multilevel modeling takes
into account these dependencies by estimating variance associated with group (e.g.
the two fathers of the same child) differences in average response (intercepts). This is
accomplished by declaring intercepts to be random effects.

Child attachment
Fathers’ sensitivity and child attachment scores were included in a two-level multilevel
model analysis. Fathers’ age was also included in the model as a control variable. The
relationships between sensitivity and attachment were found to show significant variance in
intercepts across fathers, Z = 4.07, p = .000. Results showed that higher levels of sensitivity
(β = .36, p = .003) were related to higher levels of attachment security (Table 5).
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 13

Table 5. Multilevel regression analyses predicting child attachment and

behavior problems with parental sensitivity.
Predictor variables Fixed effect SE Log likelihood
Child attachment
Step 1: 181.54
Fathers’ age −.03 .12
Step 2:
Sensitivity .36** .12
Externalizing problems
Step 1: 174.96
Attachment −.24* .11
Sensitivity .10 .10
Internalizing problems
Step 1: 189.11
Attachment −.05 .13
Sensitivity .04 .12
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Externalizing and internalizing symptoms

Two other two-level multilevel model analyses, one for each dependant variable, were
conducted to examine the association between the two independent variables
(attachment and sensitivity) and the dependant variables (externalizing and interna-
lizing symptoms). The association between attachment, sensitivity, and externalizing
symptoms showed significant variance in intercepts across fathers, Z = 2.69, p = .007.
Attachment was a significant predictor of externalizing symptoms, β = −.24, p = .03,
but sensitivity was not, β = .10, p = .33. In the second model including child inter-
nalizing symptoms, neither attachment security, β = −.05, p = .69, nor sensitivity,
β = .04, p = .76, significantly predicted child internalizing symptoms (see Table 5).

Discussion
This study is the first to examine the association between adoptive gay fathers’
parental sensitivity and child socioemotional adjustment. Based on an attachment
framework, we hypothesized that parental sensitivity would be related to child attach-
ment and psychosocial adjustment, as would be expected among heterosexual parent
families. Past research revealed only weak associations between paternal sensitivity
and child attachment. However, more positive parent–child interactions have been
reported among adoptive gay father families than among heterosexual parent families
(Golombok et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2017). Hence, our study was concerned with
documenting both fathers and children’s relational and emotional adjustment
among this understudied, but growing population.
It should be noted that fathers’ sociodemographic characteristics (age, length of
relationship of both parents, education level, ethnicity, and family income) in the
current study were very similar to those found in a study conducted with 230 adoptive
gay fathers in the United States (Tornello, Farr, & Patterson, 2011). This suggests that
our sample is representative of gay fathers and their children in North America. Also, in
accordance with recent studies (Bernier et al., 2014; Cadman et al., 2018), children’s
14 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

attachment security and behavior problems are not different from those found among
normative and non-clinical populations, suggesting that children adopted by gay
fathers are doing well in terms of their socioemotional adjustment and the quality of
their relationship with their fathers.

Fathers’ sensitivity and child functioning

Sensitivity
Fathers’ mean MBQS score (.53, SD = .34) was not significantly different from foster-to-
adopt mothers’ scores in Québec (Pallanca, 2008). In this study, mothers’ scores ranged
from −.34 to .86 with a high mean score of .60 (SD = .29). Moreover, our adoptive fathers’
mean score was not different from the mean scores found among parents from the
normative population of major Canadian cities, with sensitivity scores between .34 and
.63 (Bernier et al., 2014; Pederson et al., 2014; Tarabulsy et al., 2003). Adoptive/foster gay
fathers’ level of sensitivity is thus similar to that of foster-to-adopt mothers. These
findings confirm the relevance and quality of the psychosocial evaluations conducted
to screen adoptive parents. Past studies have underscored the need for foster parents to
display a high level of sensitivity to help their child recover from traumatic past
experiences (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2013).

Attachment
We used observational measures to assess children’s attachment to their gay fathers. To
our knowledge, our study is the first to use these measures with this population.
Children in our sample showed an average AQS score of .42. Moreover, 75% of our
children were above the average observer AQS security score of .32 found in a meta-
analysis (van IJzendoorn et al., 2004). Knowing that there is an overrepresentation of
insecure-disorganized attachment in foster and adopted children (van den Dries et al.,
2009), these results are very encouraging, especially given that attachment has an
important predictive value for the child’s emotional, cognitive, and social abilities
(Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2008). Therefore, our findings suggest that
adoptive families headed by two gay fathers provide their children with good care.
However, because the Attachment Q-Sort does not assess child attachment disorganiza-
tion and because disorganized attachment behaviors have been frequently reported in
adopted children (see van den Dries et al., 2009 for a meta-analysis), insecure attach-
ment classifications or dimensional styles should be examined among children of
adoptive gay fathers.

Child behavior problems

Only a few fathers reported behavior problems in the clinical range. The mean score of
externalizing symptoms was 47.75 (SD = 10.32) a score similar to the one reported in a study
conducted in Québec with 12- to 42-month-old children in various types of foster care
(regular, kinship, and foster-to-adopt families; M = 53.4, SD = 11.4; Poitras, Tarabulsy,
St-Pierre, & Varela-Pulido, 2015). The mean score of externalizing symptoms reported by our
adoptive gay fathers thus seems to be similar to that of other foster care children. These
findings are also in line with those of previous studies reporting few externalizing and
internalizing problems among children adopted by gay fathers (see Miller et al., 2017 for
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 15

a meta-analysis). For example, in their sample of 1- to 3-year-old children adopted by lesbian,

gay, and heterosexual parents, Farr et al. (2010) reported no significant differences in chil-
dren’s internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems as a function of parents’ sexual
orientation. More recently, in their UK study of adopted children aged 3–9 years, Golombok
et al. (2014) found more positive parental well-being and parenting in gay father families
compared to heterosexual parent families. According to the authors, the fact that gay men
have not experienced the stress of infertility and failed fertility treatments may explain these
results (Golombok et al., 2014).
However, gay parents may tend to describe their family as highly functional, either
in reaction to the stigma they often experience or because they feel they must live up
to high expectations as parents given the difficulties generally characterizing adopted
children. Observational measures of child behavior problems could be especially
useful in this regard as it is difficult to bias observational data (Kerig, 2001). In the
UK, due to concerns regarding adoption by gay men, Golombok et al. (2014) sug-
gested that children with higher levels of psychological problems were least likely to
be placed with gay couples. In contrast, research in the United States provided some
indications that the most difficult children may be placed with same-sex parents
(Brodzinsky, 2011). The context may be different in Canada because almost all adop-
tions involve children who have experienced adversity in their early years. Given the
stringent screening process adoptive gay fathers have to go through, it is more likely
that they provide their child with a highly positive parenting environment. This could
account for the low percentages of children with clinical problems in our study.
Nevertheless, given the bidirectional nature of parent–child relationships, more stu-
dies are needed on this issue.
In contrast to previous findings (Hussey & Guo, 2005; Newton, Litrownik, & Landsverk,
2000; Tarren-Sweeney, 2008), risk factors, such as multiple placements prior to adoption
or age at arrival in the foster family, were not significantly associated with measures of
behavior problems or attachment. The majority of children in our sample were placed in
gay parent families at a relatively young age (M = 1.09 years), which could explain why
multiple placements were not significantly related to child outcomes. Also, as men-
tioned by several parents, transitional foster families had greatly helped some children
to overcome their early difficulties. Although multiple placements are generally consid-
ered a risk factor, especially for attachment security (van den Dries et al., 2009), when
foster parents provide adequate sensitive care, these placements can become
a protective factor. Future studies should investigate this possibility.

Fathers’ sensitivity, child attachment, and behavior problems

Fathers’ sensitivity was significantly associated with attachment security and this corre-
lation was higher than the one reported by Lucassen et al. (2011) in their meta-analysis
including studies conducted with heterosexual fathers. The fact that at least half of our
sample of adoptive gay fathers were primary caregivers and that all fathers were highly
involved in all kinds of childcare activities, including those generally performed by
mothers (as primary caregivers), could account for this finding. High levels of involve-
ment and sensitivity are critical in building secure attachment relationships to care-
givers. Our study thus seems to support the integrative model of attachment
16 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

relationships which postulates that child attachment is optimal in a network of secure

relationships (van IJzendoorn et al., 1992).
However, contrary to our expectations, fathers’ sensitivity was not related to child
behavior problems. One of the reasons why the association between internalizing
symptoms and sensitivity among children of heterosexual parents was not replicated
in our study may be that parents are not always good reporters of their child’s inter-
nalizing symptoms (Moss et al., 2006). But this may be the case for all studies using
parents’ reports. However, as reported in many other studies (e.g. Fearon et al., 2010;
Madigan et al., 2013), higher levels of attachment security (as generally related to
parental sensitivity) were associated with low scores of externalizing and internalizing
problems. Children’s behavior problems or social adjustment and competencies during
the preschool period may be related to other aspects of caregiving behaviors that were
not assessed with our sensitivity measure, which has primarily been used with mothers
of infants and toddlers. At the preschool age, parent–child interaction gradually takes
the form of what Bowlby (1973) has called a goal-corrected partnership, in which both
the parent and child increasingly consider one another’s plans, actions, and intentions,
thus transforming their relationship into a partnership. Perhaps components of the
parent–child relationship like reciprocity, collaboration, or mutuality ought to be con-
sidered when assessing caregiving behaviors with children beyond the infancy and
toddler period. Overall, the quality of adoptive gay fathers’ relationship with their
child seems to be associated with their child’s socioemotional adjustment, but more
attention needs to be paid to the quality of the attachment relationship children may
develop in different family configurations such as in adoptive lesbian mother families.

Limitations and recommendations

First, the sample size of our study was small and included very few girls, which is often
the case in studies of adoptive gay father families. Recruiting adoptive gay father
families is always a challenge for researchers, who ought to work together in combining
their samples. Moreover, because the aim of our study was primarily to determine
whether the well-documented link between child attachment and psychological adjust-
ment was present among adoptive gay parent families, no comparison group was
included. Comparison with heterosexual fathers is necessary to draw firm conclusions
about children and their adoptive gay fathers, especially given that some of our
measures (AQS, MBQS) did not provide any norms. Also, placement in foster care is
a radical intervention aimed at protecting children whose development and security are
compromised in their natural caregiving environment. Nevertheless, most biological
parents maintain contact with their child following placement. Because the adoption
process can sometimes take years to complete, some children in our sample were still in
touch with their biological parents, most of the time with their mother. This could have
had an impact on children’s attachment to their adoptive dads. In addition, the AQS was
used in order to assess attachment security, which might be less appropriate for older
children. In order to activate the attachment system, the child needs to experience
a certain degree of distress. Observing children up to 7 years at home may not be as
revealing than a separation–reunion procedure conducted in the lab (see Moss, Cyr,
Bureau, Tarabulsy, & Dubois-Comtois, 2005). Future studies on gay fathers and their
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 17

adopted children should consider using different procedures to assess child attachment.
Finally, although no correlation was found between fathers’ sensitivity and child age,
another limitation stems from the fact that parental sensitivity was measured with
children of a wide age range.

Conclusion and social implications

This study highlights the parenting skills of adoptive gay fathers who appear as sensitive
parents and good caregivers for vulnerable children. Despite the persistence of strong
social resistance, probably related to the traditional roles of men within the family, our
findings also suggest on a broader level that fathers can play all kinds of roles (play-
mates, caregivers, protectors, role models, moral guides, teachers, and providers) and
with children of all ages, even the younger ones. This study also has several implications
for the development of social policy and legislation regarding families of adoptive gay
fathers. The positive outcomes of their children clearly show that adoptive gay fathers
are able to provide a nurturing environment for their child. Thus, there seems to be
a largely untapped pool of potential adoptive parents. The challenges faced by gay
couples who wish to adopt are greater than those experienced by lesbian and hetero-
sexual couples. Our findings contribute to fight the prevalent stigma against families
headed by same-sex parents not only in the general population but also among social
workers, psychologists, and other professionals involved in custody decisions and
processes.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) and the Institut universitaire Jeunes en difficulté, CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-L’Île-de-Montréal.
We thank the participating families and our collaborators, les Centres Jeunesse de Montréal,
Québec, Lanaudière, Outaouais et Laurentides, the LBGT Family Coalition, and the Chaire sur
l’homophobie at UQAM for their invaluable assistance in this research project.

Funding
This work was supported by the Institut universitaire Jeunes en difficulté, CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de
-L’Île-de-Montréal; and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Research
support was also provided to the second by the Canada Research Chairs Program.

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Amato, P. R., & Rivera, F. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 375–384.
Atkinson, L., Niccols, A., Paglia, A., Coolbear, J., Parker, K. C. H., Poulton, L., … Sitarenios, G. (2000). A
meta-analysis of time between maternal sensitivity and attachment assessments: Implications
for internal working models in infancy/toddlerhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
17(6), 791–810.
18 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Averett, P., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2009). An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption.
Adoption Quarterly, 12(3–4), 129–151.
Barber, J. G., Delfabbro, P. H., & Cooper, L. (2001). The predictors of unsuccessful transition to foster
care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(6), 785–790.
Barth, R. P., & Needell, B. (1996). Outcomes for drug-exposed children four years post-adoption.
Children and Youth Services Review, 18(1–2), 37–56.
Bernier, A., Matte-Gagné, C., Bélanger, M. È., & Whipple, N. (2014). Taking stock of two decades of
attachment transmission gap: Broadening the assessment of maternal behavior. Child
Development, 85(5), 1852–1865.
Boisclair, A. (2000). Validation du tri-de-cartes des comportements maternels chez une population de
pères (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université Laval.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute; Brodzinsky, D. (2011). Expanding resources for children:
Research-based best practices in adoption by gays and lesbians. New York: Author.
Brown, G. L., McBride, B. A., Shin, N., & Bost, K. K. (2007). Parenting predictors of father-child
attachment. Fathering, 5, 197–219.
Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in
the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127–136.
Cadman, T., Diamond, P. R., & Fearon, R. P. (2018). Reassessing the validity of the attachment
Q-sort: An updated meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 27, 1–54.
Caldera, Y. M. (2004). Paternal involvement and infant-father attachment: A Q-set study. Fathering,
2, 191–210.
Colonnesi, C., Wissink, I. B., Noom, M. J., Asscher, J. J., Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Kellaert-
Knol, M. G. (2013). Basic trust: An attachment-oriented intervention based on mind-mindedness
in adoptive families. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 179–188.
Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of
same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(3), 385–407.
Dozier, M., & Sepulveda, S. (2004). Foster mother state of mind and treatment use: Different
challenges for different people. Infant Mental Health, 25(4), 368–378.
Dozier, M, Stovall, K. C, Albus, K. E, & Bates, B. (2001). Attachment for infants in foster care: the role
of caregiver state of mind. Child Development, 72, 1467–1477.
Dubois-Comtois, K., Cyr, C., Vandal, C., & Moss, E. (2013). Le placement en famille d’accueil:
Vulnérabilité socioaffective de l’enfant et modèle d’intervention relationnelle. In C. Dufresne,
M. Provost, J. Lemelin, & A. Plamondon (Eds.), Le développement social de l’enfant (pp. 29–50).
Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Dubois-Comtois, K., Bernier, A., Tarabulsy, G. M., Cyr, C., St-Laurent, D., Lanctôt, A.-S., & Béliveau, M.-
J. (2015). Behavior problems of children in foster care: Associations with foster mothers’
representations, commitment, and the quality of mother–Child interaction. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 48, 119–130.
Erich, S., Leung, P., & Kindle, P. (2005). A comparative analysis of adoptive family functioning with
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents and their children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1,
43–60.
Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive
families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14,
164–178.
Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples:
Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84(4), 1226–1240.
Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A., & Roisman, G. I.
(2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of
children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81, 435–456.
Feugé, É. A., Cossette, L., Cyr, C., & Julien, D. (2018). Parental involvement among adoptive gay
fathers: Associations with resources, time constraints, gender role, and child adjustment.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, Advance online publication.
doi:10.1037/sgd0000299
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 19

Goldberg, A. E., Black, K. A., Manley, M. H., & Frost, R. (2017). “We told them that we are both really
involved parents”: Sexual minority and heterosexual adoptive parents’ engagement in school
communities. Gender and Education, 29(5), 614–631.
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.
Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). Adoptive gay
father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment. Child
Development, 85(2), 456–468.
Goodsell, T. L., & Meldrum, J. T. (2010). Nurturing fathers: A qualitative examination of child-father
attachment. Early Child Development & Care, 180, 249–262.
Howe, D. (1997). Parent-reported problems in 211 adopted children: Some risk and protective
factors. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 38(4), 401–411.
Howes, C., Rodning, C., Galluzzo, D. C., & Myers, L. (1990). Attachment and child care: Relationships
with mother and caregiver. In N. Fox & G. G. Fein (Eds.), Infant day care: The current debate (pp.
169-182). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.
Hussey, D. L., & Guo, S. (2005). Characteristics and trajectories of treatment foster care youth. Child
Welfare, 84(4), 485–506.
Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2013). Québec handy numbers. Retrieved from http://www.
stat.gouv.qc.ca/quebec-chiffre-main/pdf/qcm2017_an.pdf
Jennings, S., Mellish, L., Tasker, F., Lamb, M. E., & Golombok, S. (2014). Why adoption? Gay, lesbian,
and heterosexual adoptive parents’ reproductive experiences and reasons for adoption.
Adoption Quarterly, 17(3), 205–226.
Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009). International adoption comes of age: Development of
international adoptees from a longitudinal and meta-analytical perspective. In G. M. Wrobel &
E. Neil (Eds.), International advances in adoption research for practice (pp. 169–192). London:
John Wiley and Sons.
Julien, D. (2003). « L’adaptation des jeunes gais, lesbiennes ou personnes bisexuelles et de leurs
parents en contexte urbain et régional ». In D. Julien & J. J. Lévy (Eds.), Homosexualités –
Variations régionales (pp. 141–159). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Kaniuk, J., Steele, M., & Hodges, J. (2004). Report on a longitudinal research project, exploring the
development of attachments between older, hard-to-place children and their adopters over the
first two years of placement. Adoption & Fostering, 28(2), 61–67.
Kerig, P. K. (Ed.). (2001). Introduction and overviews: Conceptual issues in family observational
research. London, UK: Erlbaum.
Kim, E. S., & Kim, B. S. (2009). The structural relationships of social support, mother’s psychological
status, and maternal sensitivity to attachment security in children with disabilities. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 10, 561–573.
L’Archevêque, A., & Julien, D. (2013). Intégration des identités homosexuelle et paternelle chez les
pères gays. Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 45(1), 72–84.
Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and guide. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 1–18). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lawrence, R. C., Carlson, A. E., & Egeland, B. (2006). The impact of foster care on development.
Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 57–76.
Lucassen, N., Tharner, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Volling, B. L.,
Verhulst, F. C., … Tiemeier, H. (2011). The association between paternal sensitivity and
infant-father attachment security: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of
Family Psychology, 25(6), 986–992.
MacLean, K, & Gunion, M. (2003). Learning with care: The education of children looked after away
from home by local authorities in scotland. Adoption & Fostering Journal, 27(2), 20–31.
Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D. (2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in
early childhood: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 672–689.
20 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

Miller, B. G., Kors, S., & Macfie, J. (2017). No differences? Meta-analytic comparisons of psycholo-
gical adjustment in children of gay fathers and heterosexual parents. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/sgd0000203
Miner, J. L., & Clarke-Stewart, A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behaviour from age 2 to age 9:
Relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting, and rater. Developmental Psychology,
44, 771–786.
Moran, G., Forbes, L., Evans, E., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Madigan, S. (2008). Both maternal sensitivity and
atypical maternal behavior independently predict attachment security and disorganization in
adolescent mother–Infant relationships. Infant Behavior and Development, 31(2), 321–325.
Moss, E., Cyr, C., Bureau, J.-F., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2005). Stability of attachment
during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41, 773–783.
Moss, E., Dubois-Comtois, K., Cyr, C., Tarabulsy, G. M., St.-Laurent, D., & Bernier, A. (2011). Efficacy of
a home-visiting intervention aimed at improving maternal sensitivity, child attachment, and
behavioral outcomes for maltreated children: A randomized control trial. Development and
Psychopathology, 23, 195–210.
Moss, E., Smolla, N., Cyr, C., Dubois-Comtois, K., Mazzarello, T., & Berthiaume, C. (2006). Attachment
and behavior problems in middle childhood as reported by adult and child informants.
Development and Psychopathology, 18(2), 425–444.
Newton, R, Litrownik, A. J, & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentan-
gling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 24(10), 1363–1374.
Owens, E. B., & Shaw, D. S. (2003). Predicting growth curves of externalizing behavior across the
preschool years. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 575–590.
Pallanca, D. (2008). Les caractéristiques des mères d’accueil et leur niveau de sensibilité maternelle
dans le développement d’une nouvelle relation d’attachement chez les enfants placés
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbian and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family,
62(4), 1052–1069.
Patterson, C. J. (2017). Parents’ sexual orientation and children’s development. Child Development
Perspectives, 11, 45–49.
Pederson, D. R., Bailey, H. N., Tarabulsy, G. M., Bento, S., & Moran, G. (2014). Understanding
sensitivity: Lessons learned from the legacy of Mary Ainsworth. Attachment & Human
Development, 16(3), 261–270.
Pederson, D. R., Gleason, K., Moran, G., & Bento, S. (1998). Maternal attachment representations,
maternal sensitivity, and the infant-mother attachment relationship. Developmental Psychology,
34, 925–933.
Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1995). A categorical description of infant-mother relationships in the
home and its relation to Q-sort measures of infant-mother interaction. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 60(3). doi:10.2307/1166174
Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1996). Expressions of the attachment relationship outside of the
strange situation. Child Development, 67(3), 915–927.
Petitclerc, A., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Childhood disruptive behaviour disorders: Review of their
origin, development, and prevention. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(4), 222–231.
Pierrhumbert, B., Muhlemann, I., Antonietti, J.-P., Sieye, A., & Halfon, O. (1995). Étude de validation
d’une version francophone du « Q-sort » d’attachement de Waters et Deane. Enfance, 48,
293–315.
Poitras, K, & Tarabulsy, G. (2017). Les contacts parent-enfant suite au placement en famille
substitut: liens avec la stabilité du placement. Enfances Familles Générations, 28, 1–26.
Poitras, K., Tarabulsy, G. M., St-Pierre, A., & Varela-Pulido, N. (2015, March). Contact with biological
parents following placement in foster care: Associations with internalization and externalization
symptoms. Poster presented at the Conference of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Philadelphia, PA.
Ryan, S. (2007). Parent-child interaction styles between gay and lesbian parents and their adopted
children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 105–132.
 ATTACHMENT & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 21

Short, E., Riggs, W., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., & Kane, G. (2007). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) parented families: A literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society (pp.
29). Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The
Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford.
Steele, M., Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Steele, H., Hillman, S., & Asquith, K. (2008). Forecasting outcomes
in previously maltreated children: The use of the AAI in a longitudinal adoption study. In
H. Steele & M. Steele (Eds.), Clinical applications of the adult attachment interview (pp.
427–451). New York: Guilford Press.
Stovall, K. C., & Dozier, M. (2000). The development of attachment in new relationships: Single
subject analyses for ten foster infants. Development and Psychopathology, 12(2), 133–156.
Tarabulsy, G., Provost, M., Deslandes, L., St-Laurent, D., Moss, E., Lemelin, J.-P., & Dassylva, J.-F.
(2003). Individual differences in infant still face response at 6 months. Infant Behavior and
Development, 26, 421–438.
Tarabulsy, G. M., Avgoustis, E., Phillips, J., Pederson, D. R., & Moran, G. (1997). Similarities and
differences in mothers’ and observers’ descriptions of attachment behaviors. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 599–619.
Tarabulsy, G. M., Provost, M. A., Bordeleau, S., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Moran, G., Pederson, D. R., …
Pierce, T. (2009). Validation of a short version of the maternal behavior Q-set applied to a brief
video record of mother-infant interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(1), 132–136.
Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2008). Retrospective and concurrent predictors of the mental health of
children in care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 1–25.
Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Journal of
Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 224–240.
Tornello, S. L., Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2011). Predictors of parenting stress among gay
adoptive fathers in the United States. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 591–600.
Trautmann-Villalba, P., Gschwendt, M., Schmidt, M. H., & Laucht, M. (2006). Father-infant interac-
tion patterns as pre- cursors of children’s later externalizing behavior problems: A longitudinal
study over 11 years. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 256(6), 344–349.
Van Bakel, H.J.A, & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (2004). AQS security scores; what do they represent? A
study in construct validation. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25, 175–193.
van den Dries, L., Juffer, F., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). Fostering
security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review,
31, 410–421.
van IJzendnorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and
contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 713–734). New York: Guilford Press.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2006). The Emmanuel Miller memorial lecture 2006. Adoption as
intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in physical,
socio-emotional, and cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47,
1228–1245.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Sagi, A., & Lambermon, M. W. E. (1992). The multiple caretaker paradox:
Data from Holland and Israel. New Directions for Child Development, 57, 5–24.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Vereijken, C. M. J. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M.
(2004). Assessing attachment security with the attachment Q Sort: Meta-analytic evidence for
the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development, 75(4), 1188–1213.
Varela Pulido, N. (2016). Expérience de la position kangourou par rapport au stress et la sensibilité
ultérieure des pères de bébés prématurés (Doctoral dissertation). Université du Québec à
Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Vecho, O., & Schneider, B. (2005). Homoparentalité et développement de l’enfant: Bilan de 30 ans
de publication. Psychiatrie de l’enfant, 68(1), 271–328.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment
relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood.
22 É. A. FEUGÉ ET AL.

In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1–2, Serial No. 209)
Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2008). Individual differences in infant-
caregiver attachment: Conceptual and empirical aspects of security. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 78–101).
New York: Guilford Press.
Zeegers, M. A. J., Colonnesi, C., Stams, G.-J.-J. M., & Meins, E. (2017). Mind matters: A meta-analysis
on parental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant–Parent attachment.
Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1245–1272.