Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children

Courts determine custody and visitation on the basisof the ‘‘best interests of the child.’’ Current judicial rulings in some jurisdictions reflect a bias against awarding custody or granting visitation rights to homosexual parents, favoring the heterosexual parent or heterosexual relative of the child(ren). Should the sexual orientation of the parent play a part in the determination of custody or visitation in order to protect the child? This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature comparing the impact of heterosexual and homosexual parents, using a variety of measures, on the child(ren). The analyses examine parenting practices, the emotional well-being of the child, and the sexual orientation of the child. The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court.

法院通常以“儿童的最大利益”为原则决定监护权和探视权。然而，目前一些司法管辖区的判决中仍存在偏见，倾向于将监护权或探视权判给异性恋家长或孩子的异性恋亲属，而非同性恋家长。这是否合理？家长的性取向是否应该影响对监护权或探视权的裁定？

本荟萃分析总结了现有的定量研究文献，这些研究通过多种方式比较了异性恋与同性恋家长对孩子的影响。

本研究结果显示，异性恋和同性恋家长在育儿实践、孩子的情绪调整及性取向方面没有显著差异。换言之，数据并不支持法院对同性恋家长持有的任何偏见。