The Cinderella Effect - does it have implications for couples using sperm donor?

[Carla786]

I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I don't want to upset anyone. But I think it needs to be discussed.

The Cinderella Effect was coined by a husband and wife research team in the 1970s, and while some studies have questioned it since, it does seem to still be widely accepted as at least somewhat accurate.

Essentially, it means that all things being equal, a stepfather is more likely to abuse a child than a biological father.

I came across this in the recent MN discussions about the Australia nursery abuse cases. Some were arguing that surrogacy is linked to this, as a man in a gay couple can get a baby via surrogacy who he may not be related to, with none of the checks adoption necessitates. A single man doing this is also worrying, though in that case they would probably be related.

Thinking about this, I saw that the Cinderella Effect has been discussed in relation to both adoption (straight and gay male) and gay male couples in general and found to be negligible according to results. Clearly they are all in a different situation from a stepfather.

However, one situation I can find no discussion of is sperm donation. I am uneasy about this.

A straight couple who use a sperm donor are raising a child who is not related biologically to the father, and unlike adoption, there are no checks. It is theorised that the Cinderella Effect is partly because men evolved to be suspicious of paternity, so a child from a previous relationship is under threat (adoption or a gay male couple would be different for that element as the issue of a woman having had a child with a previous partner wouldn't apply). I'm not sure how- if at all- this would apply to a straight couple using a sperm donor.

It's also fair to say that antisocial men may prey on single women so that could be another reason for the Cinderella Effect which would not apply.

One thing that makes me uneasy is the general lack of ethics that fertility clinics have displayed. The disastrous anonymous donation policy. The IVF clinics which falseh told lesbian couples reciprocal IVF was safe with clinic-run studies (a study thus year has shown it's not : like surrogacy, it involves an unrelated egg being carried, so carries the same risks).

I'm not saying the Cinderella Effect automatically applies to straight couples who use sperm donors. But I do think it's a question that should be asked.

Maybe this isn't a topic for FWR, but it involves fertility clinic ethical issues and child safety, so it's linked to many feminist issues. I wasn't sure where else it could go.

More info on the Cinderella Effect :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20psychology%2C%20the%20Cinderella,by%20her%20stepmother%20and%20stepsisters.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/200906/do-parents-favor-natural-children-over-adopted-ones

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000038?via%3Dihub

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240707200105

Note that some of these articles argue adoptive fathers are not a risk in the way stepfathers are. The question remains where fathers who have used sperm donors fall in this .

A straight couple who use a sperm donor are raising a child who is not related biologically to the father, and unlike adoption, there are no checks

This is so common though isn't it? We don't do any checks on men that single mums move in with their children.

I'm not disagreeing that it's worth looking at/ considering but it's not different for sperm doner set ups than anything else. Generally where a child is in a house with no parent then we run checks, where there is one parent we allow that parent to make their own risk decisions for who else to allow access to the children.

I agree : but that's my main point. The Cinderella Effect originally focused on stepfathers and the added risk they seem to pose, all things being equal.

I'm not saying checks should be run, any more than I'm saying stepfathers should be checked.
I'm saying that the Cinderella Effect about stepfathers is accepted, at least to some extent, in wider discourse. Many threads here will give advice along those lines (to avoid a stepfather setup if possible) especially if a single woman's kids are young and vulnerable.

But its potential connection with a male-female couple using a sperm donor has barely ever been discussed as far as I can see. I think it should be.

Interestingly, when I tried to discuss this on AIBU I was deleted after 2 aggressive replies accused me of being homophobic and 'deranged' . very odd considering I made clear in my post that I wasn't saying gay male couples would be more dangerous due to their sexuality, and I further stated that I support their right to adopt.
Well, that's AIBU for you...I hope here the topic can be discussed calmly.

The effect, if it exists at all, is likely to be much smaller.

At least three risk factors apply to stepfathers but not to men who raise children conceived with donor sperm.

Firstly, stepfathers often have their own biological children in the same family, whereas men raising children conceived with donated sperm usually don’t. Competition for resources with biological children is thought to be a risk factor for abuse.

Secondly, men raising children conceived using donor sperm raise their children from birth, whereas stepfathers usually take on a paternal role only later. The risk of sexual abuse is thought to be reduced (though obviously not eliminated) by caregiving during infancy.

Thirdly, the role of stepfather can be sought out by predators because it provides an opportunity to target abuse at a specific child who is the focus of the man’s interest from the start, with the “relationship” with the mother providing only cover for access through which to abuse the child.

If you have a strong stomach google Preston Davey. Two men adopted a one year old boy, who died in their care. They violently sexually abused him and made indecent images of everything. They have not been sentenced yet, so I imagine there will be investigations into social services involvement.

That saying "Hanging's too good for them" springs to mind.

As a person who worked in DVA for many years there does not seem to me to be a heightened risk of unrelated males and children in a family unit, indeed the heightened risk to children from, the data I collated was from biological fathers, who would use the children to keep control of the mother.

further murders of children are more commonly committed by biological fathers.

i am of the view that violent men are just violent men.

there are plenty of successful adoptions, be they by hetro sexual, gay or lesbian couples.

The concern i have about fertility treatments that involve a third party be it sperm donation or egg donation, is that there is a risk of people accidentally procreating with a close relative.

And secondly there is no consideration of a very human desire to know where we come from.

I am even more concerned about the fertility industry, surrogacy being an industry that is out of control and commodifies women's bodies, which should in my view have an outright ban.

this may well exclude gay men from pro creating, i don't think that is homophobic.

I agree with you. To be fair, the increasing bans on anonymous donation would at least remedy those 2 problems.

But I share your unease. I think known donation is different if it's maybe a family member who will be actively involved, but I still think it's not good for a child to have a biological father who probably wants no role, or at least not a parental one (not to mention a sperm donor who did want a parental role would be hard for a straight couple where the husband would want that role)

I wish lesbigay coparenting was talked about more. I have a lesbian friend who wants to do this but she notes that UK gay men tend to see surrogacy as what they should do. Germany bans surrogacy and encourages lesbians & gay men to coparent via 'rainbow families' websites so they can get to know each other well first. A much better idea.

However, on the thread topic of Cinderella Effect from non biological fathers...I respect that you saw no difference.

But a lot of studies do seem to bear this out about stepfathers, although there have also been some challenges. It's true that the stepfather factors might be social rather than purely Cinderella Effect, and might not apply to sperm donor straight couples, but I still think the question should be asked.

The theory is somewhat evopsych in that it argues that male animals like tigers, lions, and chimps all are known to kill a female's young from a previous relationship to then bring them into the reproductive phase again, and that Cinderella Effect is in line with this. Evopsych can be often overstated though. Humans don't have oestrus cycles, for one. Moreover, male infertility doesn't apply to the nature scenarios.

I wonder if we would need to define the different types of abuse for the answers to these questions to have more value?

I googled Cinderella effect and google just says abuse and mistreatment this could be physical verbal or sexual and while they often co occur they are different and the risk factors for them differ. I was aware that having a step father is one of the risk factors for being sexually abused. There is evidence if they took on a child rearing role to a baby then step fathers sexually abuse at similar rates to biological fathers as do step fathers to late teens. So I imagine raising a donar conceived child from birth will have the same affect on the data and bring sexual abuse rates in line with ‘normal’ father offending patterns.

I also think there is an element of violent men are just violent men. I left my ex because he was violent. If he becomes a step father I have no doubt he will be violet to that child too. The difference being that mother will have legal recourse to keep him from the child as he does not have PR and the records will reflect what happened. Myself and multiple other people have made referrals about my violent ex and he’s never faced a consequence even when admitting to hurting the child in family court he was excused because I’m apparently so hard to live with it’s understandable he would be driven to hurt his child. Abusive fathers more often than not get contact with their kids in our family court and it’s recorded as parents not getting on rather than the abuse it is. I’m sure there will be an effect on the data with how our systems operate to benefit fathers over children. (Yes I know this is apparently changing but I will believe it when I see it). I can’t see police dismissing physical abuse to a child who isn’t subject to PR from their abuser as just different parenting styles or that even so best not to record it as abuse because the best thing for this child is having contact with this man no matter what.

neglect makes sense when there are biological children to gourd resources for. Which won’t be the case with sperm donation.

I don’t think it would have the patterns we see with step parent risk. But without large scale peer reviewed research we can’t say that

I was trying to avoid mention of lions and such like the difference we have with our fellow mammals is our very complex societal structures and our ability to intellectually override primitive base instincts. I speak of males in regard of that, as women’s basic instincts still serve us well where they have not been corrupted by patriarchy.

i agree with the option of gay and lesbians procreating in mutually shared parenting relationships, it was a thing, back in the 80’s and nighties.

I honestly believe the differences with step parents documented as more risk than biological fathers is due to the records and systems we work within.

I just commented with a bit of my reasoning due to having a violent ex. I’ve been in loads of support groups and the freedom program etc and I must say I’m not surprised. Horrible violent dangerous men get contact with their kids all the time. If we were accurately recording what they were doing they would not be getting such dangerous levels of contact. The whole system is too fucked for us to trust any data that comes out of it

Thank you for these extra posts, they gave me a lot to think over.

I'll reply in more detail soon, I need to finish something...

To Burntt, I'll add that hour instincts seem backed up by evidence. There's evidence abuse by stepfathers is more likely to be recorded..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1492%26context%3Dallfaculty-peerpub&ved=2ahUKEwiKxbap3J-RAxUUbEEAHYzBG10QFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0ZVBe7UQeX0pxO_vFTLmlx

I'm really sorry you went through that. 🫂 My family has experience of reporting DV & the system is definitely very screwed up...I hope it will improve soon...

Looking up the effect of the stepfather caring from infancy, this does seem to mitigate the effect but not reduce it wholly.

Really there needs to be more studies, a lot of the current ones seem flawed.

The point about abuse by biological fathers being harder to spot due to courts mandating contact sounds very likely...

Many women lose their children to adoption because of violent partners, who often move in to target a vulnerable woman and, sadly, to access her children.

I am an adopter and so many adopters have children from exactlyvthis scenario. The sad thing is that the mother won't leave the partner - it's him or the children.

Adopters are highly vetted, and very violent men stand a good chance of being identified during the process (some do get through of course but if you have say a criminal record for assault, you won't be adopting, whereas you could use surrogacy or simply move in with a new partner).

I asked ChatGPT about this. I know one should be sceptical for loads of reasons and I've caught it making factual errors before, but I think in this case it made some valid points :

Have there been a surveys comparing donor conceived kids sexual and physical abuse rates to non donor conceived?
ChatGPT said:
Good question. I checked — but I found very little high-quality, peer-reviewed research that directly compares rates of sexual or physical abuse for donor-conceived children vs non–donor-conceived children. In other words: no, there is not robust evidence showing a systematic difference in abuse rates based on donor conception. Here’s what I found — and why the evidence is weak.

🔎 What the research does on donor-conceived children
• A very recent systematic review of 50 studies (with 4,666 donor-conceived (DC) participants) compared psychological outcomes of donor-conceived and non-donor-conceived people. About 19 studies were comparative. The majority (14/19) found no mental-health or wellbeing difference between DC and non-DC people; some found better outcomes (in well-being, self-esteem, social warmth), and a minority found worse outcomes (autism, ADHD, identity issues, “addiction issues,” disruptive behavior) among DC participants. PubMed
• The review authors note that evidence on “adult outcomes” is very limited, including long-term adjustment, mental-health, identity, and family relationships. PubMed+1
• Another longitudinal project compared children born via donor insemination (DI), egg donation, or surrogacy to children born via natural conception. At age 12, DI children were doing well psychologically and socially, according to standard interviews/questionnaires. PubMed
• A further study following children from donor-conception or surrogacy over ages 3, 7, and 10 found that — although on average they scored within “normal” adjustment ranges — there was some modest elevation in adjustment difficulties among those whose mothers kept the donor-conception a secret. PubMed
Importantly: these studies look at adjustment, mental health, identity, self-esteem, social functioning — not abuse rates.

🚫 What the research does not do — the big gap
I found no peer-reviewed studies that:
• Track rates of physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse among donor-conceived children, and
• Compare those rates with a matched group of non–donor-conceived children
That is, none of the systematic-reviewed studies or major empirical studies in the donor-conception literature appear to include standardized measures for child-maltreatment exposure, nor data from child protective services, hospital records, or clinical assessments of abuse or neglect.
Some older or non-scientific sources (or advocacy-oriented reports) have made claims about increased “delinquency,” substance misuse, or “negative outcomes” among donor-conceived adults — but these are not the same as rigorous data on abuse in childhood, and those sources have substantial methodological limitations.
Even the largest recent review explicitly notes that long-term data remain “very limited.” PubMed+1

✅ What this means for interpreting claims about abuse risk and donor-conception
• Because there is no systematic, representative data comparing abuse rates in donor-conception vs non–donor-conception families, we have no basis to conclude either increased or decreased abuse risk associated with donor conception.
• Assertions that donor-conceived children are more likely to be abused are, at best, speculative — and at worst, misleading if they draw on non-representative or flawed surveys.
• What the empirical literature does support (with modest evidence) is that donor-conceived children, on average, show similar psychological and social adjustment compared to non-donor children — especially when families are open about donor conception early. King's College London+3PubMed+3PubMed+3

🎯 Conclusion — Not enough evidence on abuse risk
In short: there is no good evidence either way. At present, we simply don’t have any large-scale, high-quality studies that measure or compare physical or sexual abuse rates in donor-conceived vs non–donor-conceived populations.

You said:
Why has there been no such research? The Cinderella Effect is discussed in adoption debates and gay parenting debates in the past, why did straight donor sperm couples not receive the same scrutiny?
ChatGPT said:

✅ 1. Donor sperm families were designed to be “invisible”
For most of the 20th century:
• Donor insemination (DI) was secretive
• Doctors advised parents never to tell the child
• Records were deliberately destroyed to prevent donor identification
• DI was often considered “illegitimate” or “adulterous,” so privacy was emphasized
Because secrecy was built into the practice, researchers could not easily identify donor-conceived children to study them at all — let alone study sensitive topics like abuse.
By contrast, adopted children, foster children, and children of same-sex couples are visible and legally documented, making them easier to sample and track.

✅ 2. The medical profession controlled DI, not social scientists
Adoption involved:
• judges
• social workers
• child protection agencies
• state bureaucracies
These fields are research-heavy and attentive to risk factors such as the Cinderella Effect.
But donor insemination was run almost entirely by:
• private fertility clinics
• physicians
• urologists
These professions historically had:
• less interest in long-term social outcomes
• strong incentives to protect patient privacy
• a culture of limited follow-up
• no regulatory requirement to track children’s wellbeing
Because of this, almost no datasets existed for social scientists to use.

✅ 3. Straight married couples using donor sperm “looked normal”
For most donors, the intended family structure was:
married man + married woman + child
Because the social structure matched what society viewed as “normal,” paternal “non-genetic relatedness” was not socially salient. Researchers did not see these families as a distinct group requiring special attention.
By contrast:
• Adoptive families
Were seen as “non-biological” and were historically viewed as needing evaluation and monitoring.
• Gay/lesbian families
Were publicly debated as “nontraditional,” drawing scrutiny from opponents and researchers trying to debunk fears.
• Stepfamilies
Are identifiable in population registers and are naturally subjects in maltreatment research.
But donor-conceived families with straight parents do not appear different in census or survey data.
Thus, no institutional or political pressure pushed for research into abuse risk.

✅ 4. Ethical and legal barriers
Studying child abuse requires:
• verified biological relationships
• access to sensitive records
• ethical clearance
• parental consent
But to measure “donor-conceived vs non–donor-conceived,” researchers would need to know:
• who was donor-conceived,
• which father is genetic, and
• which social fathers are misattributed genetically.
Historically, almost none of this information was available. It still isn’t, given that:
• many donor-conceived adults remain unaware of their origins
• clinics rarely tracked outcomes
• laws sealed donor records
These barriers make rigorous comparison research nearly impossible.

✅ 5. Cinderella Effect research is strongest where maltreatment records are available
It’s easy to study the Cinderella Effect in:
• stepfamilies (visible in census data)
• adoptive families (legal category)
• special populations tracked by social services
But DI families do not appear in any registry. There is:
• no public marker of donor conception
• no government tracking
• no way to link children to donors through official data
• no indicator of “non-genetic father” in social statistics
So even if scientists want to test Cinderella-effect hypotheses in DI families, no dataset exists.

✅ 6. Political sensitivities
Discussing potential abuse in donor families risks upsetting multiple powerful stakeholders:
• fertility clinics
• private sperm banks
• heterosexual couples using donor sperm
• legislators wanting to protect reproductive technologies
Researchers working in reproductive medicine or psychology often rely on clinic cooperation, so it’s easier to study:
• adjustment
• identity
• disclosure
• parent–child relationships
—and not topics like abuse, which clinics may not want highlighted.
In contrast, adoption and gay parenting were domains of public controversy, creating more political pressure for research — not less.

🎯 Summary: Why donor sperm families avoided Cinderella-Effect-style scrutiny

1. Secrecy and invisibility

Parents and clinics hid donor conception; researchers couldn’t find participants.

1. Medical control, not social-science oversight

Clinics never tracked children’s social outcomes.

1. Straight families appear “normal”

Researchers didn’t view them as a distinct group needing risk assessment.

1. Ethical and legal data barriers

No registries or biological relationship records exist.

1. No accessible datasets for abuse comparisons

Unlike adoption or stepfamilies, DI families leave almost no trace in administrative data.

1. Political reluctance

Clinics and parents avoided research that could highlight risks or stigma. Together, these factors make it unsurprising that no robust studies exist on abuse rates in donor-conceived families.

Terrible. Recent cases like Constance Marten underline that for a scary number of women, the man is the priority, no matter what he does to her children. I know abuse and coercion are key factors too, but an adult woman does still have responsibility for what happens to her children.

What you point out is crucial: adopters are vetted. Stepparents are not. Couples who use surrogacy are not. Nor are couples who use sperm donation.

“Many threads here will give advice along those lines (to avoid a stepfather setup if possible) especially if a single woman's kids are young and vulnerable.”

I’ll say it, you get a kick out of undermining other people’s family set-ups.

When a couple have a child via a sperm donor, the man is usually very involved in the decision, and it will come often after years of desperately wanting a child. He is fully onboard with the child and will love it as his own. He might even love them more than a man who has become a father by mistake! Adoption is likely to be similar.

Stepfathers are more likely to be uninterested in the children. They are in love with a woman and taking on the children is just a price they pay to get her. They don't love the children but still have to put up with living with them, and abuse is more likely to arise in that environment.

If there's evidence that a certain setup is more risky for children (and potentially women's) safety, it's reasonable for that to be discussed.

My mother is a single mother herself. I know how painful it can be to have your family setup unfairly judged. This isn't about judging or criticising individuals, it's about discussing overall patterns and whether certain choices are less advisable/ethical.

'Be kind' silencing is not ethical. It wasn't ethical in the case of GC issues, it's not ethical in the case of surrogacy or this case either

Sadly paedophiles do target single mothers for access to their children. More women should use Clare's law to check out men they introduce into their children's lives. I have a female relative whose partner abused her daughter by a previous partner. Frankly she was so under his spell, she ignored all the danger signs. Poor kid.

It is theorised that the Cinderella Effect is partly because men evolved to be suspicious of paternity, so a child from a previous relationship is under threat

This seems like a nonsense theory to me. It's making a romantic story out of something which is not very likely. Think about all the children over the generations whose biological father was not who the mother said it was, fathers don't automatically know - obviously they might get a clue if the child looks suspiciously like their best friend or the postman or whatever, but it's certainly not infrequent that the supposed father is completely unaware until something (like a medical event or one of those ancestry type DNA tests) makes it accidentally clear they are not biologically related. I also think if it was instinctive, it would apply to gay men too. Instincts don't update with our cultural norms, that's why we still find sugar and fat unbelievably delicious because the part of our brain which decides what food is tasty hasn't had an upgrade since the times that high sugar/high fat would have been an extremely valuable, dense source of calories and nutrients (rather than so abundant it causes us to become unhealthily overweight).

OTOH we know that men who abuse children are almost certain to have a history of domestic violence, and it's also well known that people of both sexes who have previously been in a DV relationship tend to repeat that pattern with future relationships.

Obviously it's not only the case that all couples with children who split up had DV in the relationship, but if you think about couples with children who have DV in the relationship vs those who have healthy relationship norms, which group are more likely to stay together? Plus as you point out the pattern of predatory men specifically seeking out a more vulnerable woman. Of course relationships split up for all kinds of reasons plus partners can die etc but DV is unfortunately extremely common and statistically, about 20% of single parents have experienced DV in the last year (as opposed to 6.6% of women generally).

I agree this is hopefully true. It seems to be true according to adoption stats.

I think it's complex though. I know evopsych gets a lot wrong, as I said, but adoption is a bit different given that the child will be biologically related to neither parent. Whereas a donor-conceived child will be related to the mother. Obviously, in the modern world, we have sperm banks so a woman can be pregnant without committing infidelity. But does that override instincts for jealousy and to not care for a non-biologically relayed child? In many cases these instincts don't figure at all.

But I think we should be wary of saying they definitely don't. There has been virtually zero research on abuse in donor-conceived vs non donor conceived families, for the reasons I linked above. And while new inventions and ways of having kids like sperm donation are not necessarily bad because they're new, it's fair to say that humans carry a lot of instincts which didn't evolve for the modern environment and we can't disregard them, though the size of the role they play varies a lot.

I suspect the level of parental cooperation over the donor conception is a big factor. Some studies report that women are usually the ones who initiate the plan & that men can sometimes seem reluctant/resentful or even pressured. This is probably not the majority, I imagine if the father is very willing then it's different.

The Cinderella Effect also relies on the man being fertile and sometimes having biological children himself, as pp said. If a man knows he's infertile, I'm not sure whether that would moderate evolutionary jealoust etc - maybe?

You’re right to raise this OP. Odd that a PP thinks this should be a taboo subject.

I’m donor conceived and I am very biased because my “dad” (the one who raised me, not my biological father) sexually abused me and my siblings. He got sent to prison. I found a letter from him to my mum saying that he was only in trouble because the authorities thought he was related to us!! So he very clearly felt a lack of taboo, to say the least.

However, I have several donor-conceived half siblings (all children of the same sperm donor): I don’t know all of them but of the ones I know, most of them had or have good to very good relationships with their social fathers. One out of our group of eight also had problems with his “dad”; I’m not sure of the nature of them.