Trust Onion Model: A Guide to Building Black Queer Chosen Family

What Is A Chosen Family?

Chosen family—also called found family or family of choice—refers to non‑biological relationships that queer people intentionally build for love, support, safety, and belonging. For many LGBTQ+ people, especially those facing rejection, silence, or conditional love from their family of origin, chosen family can mean the difference between surviving and truly living.

Love, care, safety, affirmation, and belonging are core emotional needs for queer people. For Black LGBTQ+ people—who often navigate ongoing racial prejudice, objectification, exclusion, and, in some contexts, targeted violence—the need for chosen family can run even deeper. In this reality, chosen family moves beyond “cute community vibes” and functions as essential care infrastructure—emotional, practical, and sometimes life‑saving.

This guide explores how Black queer chosen families form across different environments—from safer cities like London and New York to high‑risk settings like Nigeria and Ghana, where criminalisation and stigma force relationships into secrecy and raise the stakes of trust and care^[2].

It introduces Daniel Nkado’s Trust Onion Model as a practical framework for building chosen family through layered, permission‑based access—making repair, not simply familiarity or shared identity, the gateway to deeper connection.

Why Chosen Family Matters For Black LGBTQ+ People

Chosen family does not replace a queer person’s “real family.” It is a real family—built through consent, care, and sustained responsibility. Whether formed openly in London or quietly in Accra, one truth holds: love becomes family when it shows up consistently, especially when the world treats queer people as unworthy of that level of care.

For Black queer people in particular, chosen family can become life‑sustaining sanctuaries—offering LGBTQ+ affirmation and cultural familiarity, without the constant work of negotiating identity.

How Chosen Family Reduces Stress and Risk for Black Gay Men

Three well‑established research findings show that chosen family plays a critical role in reducing stress, improving safety, and building emotional resilience for Black gay men.

a. Stress Buffer
Chosen family buffers minority stress—chronic stress from stigma, discrimination, identity concealment, and safety concerns—by creating spaces where identity does not need to be hidden, defended, or negotiated. This reduces the cumulative stress burden that undermines queer people’s mental and physical health over time (Meyer, 2003)^[6].

b. Practical Support and Stability
Chosen family steps in when biological family, faith communities, or institutions respond with rejection or sanction, offering stable emotional care and practical support that protect wellbeing and sustain resilience (Frost et al., 2016)^[3].

c. Reduces Isolation
Finally, chosen family reduces isolation and depression risk among Black sexual minority men by providing a reliable connection when traditional support networks run thin or fail (Dawes et al., 2024)^[1].

Part 1: Chosen Family in Low‑Risk Cities — London and New York

Public acceptance of homosexuality remains high in the UK and US but extremely low in Nigeria, with regional data indicating similar intolerance in Ghana (Pew Research Centre, 2020; Afrobarometer, 2021)^[8]. This context explains why chosen family can be formed openly in cities like London and New York, while in Nigeria, Ghana, and many parts of Africa, it primarily operates as small, carefully vetted circles that prioritise risk management over visibility.

Building Chosen Family in London:

London offers scale and visibility, yet many Black queer Londoners still struggle to find a sense of belonging. Racism, fetishisation, and exclusion shape many mainstream LGBTQ+ spaces, while stigma and moral policing persist in parts of Black and religious communities. UK law helps—through the Equality Act 2010^[11] and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013^[12]—but in crises, systems still default to spouses and biological relatives^[7]. In that gap, chosen family becomes survival infrastructure: relationships where Blackness and queerness coexist without negotiation. Many UK-based chosen families turn rights into protection through deliberate planning—wills, medical decision proxies (LPAs)^[10], and cohabitation agreements.

Building Chosen Family in New York:

New York City offers a dense network of LGBTQ+ support, including The Centre and culturally specific spaces such as the Audre Lorde Project. A longstanding model of chosen family is the ballroom house system, led by “mothers” and “fathers” who mentor “children.” Emerging in response to racism, transphobia, and homelessness, these houses—rooted in the legacy of pioneers like Crystal LaBeija—function as vital family systems providing care, mentorship, and belonging (Arnold & Bailey, 2009). Despite strong anti‑discrimination protections and federally recognised same‑sex marriage, chosen families in the US often take additional legal steps—such as second-parent adoption or healthcare proxies—to ensure their relationships are formally protected.

---

Part 2: Chosen Family in High-Risk Contexts–Nigeria and Ghana

In Nigeria, the state criminalises same‑sex relationships and punishes both intimacy and visibility. Federal law bans same‑sex unions and LGBTQ+ organisations, while Sharia codes in some northern states allow extreme penalties, including death by stoning. In response, Black queer chosen family often forms as small, high‑trust survival networks. People share discreet housing, pool emergency funds, coordinate crisis response after outing or displacement, and move information around carefully. While groups like The Initiative for Equal Rights (TIERs) provide legal support, everyday safety still depends on these tightly controlled circles^[6].

In Ghana, the law criminalises male same‑sex activity, and lawmakers continue to push harsher legislation that could expand penalties and criminalise “promotion” or support. As in Nigeria, this hostile climate keeps chosen family low‑visibility and trust‑heavy. Across both contexts, the rule remains the same: deep trust, proven accountability, and repair capacity must come before high access^[5].

Part 3: The Trust Onion Model: A Practical Trust Roadmap

The Trust Onion Model (T-O-M), developed by Daniel Nkado, is a four-layer framework for assessing trust, access, and relational safety in one-to-one relationships. Chemistry, shared identity, or mutual trauma can create fast familiarity, but T-O-M separates mutual feelings and shared time from earned access. The model treats repair competence—the ability to acknowledge harm, take accountability, and restore trust—as the clearest test of safety.

Ruptures—any behaviour or dynamic that causes negative impact—are inevitable in human relationships. T-O-M doesn’t demand a rupture-free connection. It treats rupture-and-repair as the engine of trust: when people repair well, access deepens; when people avoid, minimise, or mishandle repair, access stalls. This makes T-O-M a practical roadmap for building trust and managing boundaries in deep relationships—such as marriage, civil partnership, or chosen family—without confusing attraction or mutuality for safety.

C-A-F-I: The 4 Layers of the Trust Onion Model

C‑A‑F‑I describes how trust earns access over time by moving through four distinct layers: Contact, Acquaintance, Familiarity, and Inner Circle. Each layer has a specific behavioural threshold that must be met before deeper access is granted—basic honesty and respect at Contact, consistency at Acquaintance, rupture‑and‑repair at Familiarity, and sustained responsibility at the Inner Circle.

Core principles of the Trust Onion Model

1. Calculate trust in layers. Grant access based on behaviour—not time.
2. Treat access as restricted. Shared identity or proximity doesn’t automatically entitle anyone to your emotional, material, or safety access.
3. Use repair as the gate. Repair competence—not closeness or apology—decides whether deeper access is safe to grant.
4. Weigh patterns over promises. Repeated behaviour, especially after rupture, matters more than stated intent or moral explanation.

Repair Over Intent as a Measure of Trust

The Trust Onion Model treats repair competence as the clearest measure of trust for two reasons. First, in high-risk relational contexts—such as relationships between Black men—outcomes matter more than explanations. Intent, emotion, and morality stay internal and hard to verify, while repair shows observable behavioural patterns. Second, repair behaviour signals value: people may understand repair in theory, but they usually reserve real repair for the relationships they truly prioritise in practice.

Trust Onion Layers: Contact, Acquaintance, Familiarity & Inner Circle

Rather than assuming closeness through time or feeling, the Trust Onion Model treats access as restricted and earned. It separates feeling close from giving access, asking users to increase access only when someone proves they can handle it through repair competence—acknowledging harm, taking accountability, and demonstrating change. By making repair the gate to deeper intimacy, the model supports chosen family safely and intentionally, without mistaking warmth or intensity for relational safety.

Layer 1: Contact

Most relationships begin at first contact. Access remains social and situational, so disclosure stays light while you observe behaviour. Look for baseline respect, honesty, and everyday kindness—authenticity without performance. At this stage, you owe no intimacy, vulnerability, emotional labour, or loyalty. First contact prioritises observation with minimal or zero investment.

Layer 2: Acquaintance

At this layer, consistency becomes evidence. You stop asking “Are they polite?” and start asking “How reliable are they?” Track follow‑through, alignment between words and actions, and respect that holds across moods, settings, and incentives. Trust remains provisional. Familiarity still does not justify deeper access.

Layer 3: Familiarity — The Repair Threshold

This layer is the hinge. Familiarity does not guarantee safety—but it marks the point where rupture and repair shift from passive information to active decision‑makers. The core question becomes: What happens when a rupture event is named? In the Trust Onion Model, naming rupture is not an attack—it is an invitation to repair. What follows determines whether the relationship stabilises, deepens, or closes. To move into the Inner Circle, the person must demonstrate the ability to repair rupture without allowing it to escalate into harm. This is the HOLD Repair Gate.

The HOLD Repair Gate: Why Time Doesn’t Equal Trust

The Trust Onion Model recognises that trust is not earned through time but through repair. Long‑term connection does not guarantee relational safety.

The HOLD Repair Gate sets the behavioural threshold for moving beyond Familiarity. HOLD doesn’t demand perfection or rupture‑free connection. It measures how someone treats you when you name harm or call out negative impact. To pass the HOLD Repair Gate, a person must demonstrate four behaviours:

H — Hold discomfort: hear impact without defensiveness, minimisation, or punishment. O — Own the impact: name their role without blame‑shifting or intent‑washing.
L — Lead with accountability: take responsibility and commit to specific change.
D — Demonstrate change: show sustained, observable adjustment over time.

Failing HOLD doesn’t make someone “bad.” It means deeper access is unsafe right now. The relationship may stabilise, stall, or close—but it should not move inward. In the Trust Onion Model, repair is not an apology—it is demonstrated responsibility that reveals both how someone handles being held accountable and how much they respect and value you.

Trust Onion: Ruptures, Repair, Return, and Downgrading

Ruptures are behaviours or dynamics that create negative impact—disrespect, misinformation, inconsistency, boundary violations, unkept promises, or social power plays. They can occur at any layer. Early on, ruptures function as information, revealing how someone behaves with limited access.

Repair becomes decisive at Familiarity, where the stakes rise because the person now holds meaningful access. In the Trust Onion Model, repair goes beyonda simple apology. It requires HOLD: holding discomfort, owning impact, leading with accountability, and demonstrating sustained change.

Return matters when someone reacts defensively at the first raising of impact. Initial reactivity is not an automatic failure; progression pauses while the model observes whether the person returns to accountability and care. When defensiveness becomes a second rupture, both the original impact and the reaction must be repaired using HOLD.

Defensiveness becomes a second rupture when it creates additional harm instead of repair:

• Invalidates impact: “You’re too sensitive,” “That’s not what I meant.”
• Shifts blame or intent‑washes: “I was stressed,” “You misunderstood.”
• Escalates power: “Now you’ve upset me,” withdrawal, anger, stonewalling.
• Punishes honesty: mockery, silence, exclusion, or social consequences.

Downgrading is a safety response, not punishment. When there is repeated serious harm or repeated repair failures, access is reduced to match what the person has proven to be safe to handle. Depending on severity, the relationship may stabilise, move outward to a lower‑access layer, or close entirely.

Layer 4: Inner Circle —e.g., Chosen Family

Only relationships that consistently pass the repair threshold belong here. Access runs high across emotional, material, and safety‑related domains. Proven repair capacity—not closeness—defines this layer. When both people can return to safety through accountability and change, rupture does not automatically become harm. Chosen family becomes possible here without constant self‑protection.

Trust Onion Model: Usage, scope, and limitations

Usage:
Use the Trust Onion Model (T‑O‑M) to evaluate trust and manage permissioned access in relationships, including when building chosen family. It separates what you feel from what someone has demonstrated. T‑O‑M requires consistent behaviour and proven repair capacity (HOLD) before access deepens. Unrepaired rupture halts progression. Serious harm or repeated repair failure justifies downgrading access.

Scope:
Apply the Trust Onion Model to friendships, dating, community ties, and mutual‑aid networks. It works in both supportive and high‑risk settings because it does not treat shared identity or visibility as proof of safety. The focus is practical: who gets your disclosure, home keys, resources, network, and crisis contact.

Limitations:
T‑O‑M does not diagnose people as “good” or “bad,” and it cannot predict outcomes. It should not replace professional support or other trust frameworks that already work for you. The model also cannot resolve structural pressures—racism, homophobia, poverty, immigration stress—that shape risk. Harm can unfold slowly, accountability can be performed, and overlapping communities can make clean exits difficult. Use the Trust Onion as a safety tool to guide access, not a moral scorecard or a way to rank people.

FAQs

Conclusion

The Trust Onion Model rests on one core principle: time does not deepen trust—consistent repair does. A relationship can last for years and still hold fragile trust. T-O-M doesn’t use visibility, chemistry, or shared identity to assess safety. Instead, it tracks observable behaviour—how someone handles power, accountability, and access under pressure. The model doesn’t advise cutting people off by default; it clarifies who gets closer, and why. It protects safety, dignity, and sustainability for building Black queer relationships and chosen family units that can hold when things get hard.

References

1. Dawes, H. C., Eden, T. M., Hall, W. J., Srivastava, A., Williams, D. Y., & Matthews, D. D. (2024). Which types of social support matter for Black sexual minority men coping with internalized homophobia? Findings from a mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1235920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1235920
2. Essima, L. O. (2021, July 1). Ghanaians are united and hospitable but intolerant toward same-sex relationships (Afrobarometer Dispatch No. 461). Afrobarometer. https://www.afrobarometer.org/publication/ad461-ghanaians-are-united-and-hospitable-intolerant-toward-same-sex-relationships/
3. Frost, D. M., Meyer, I. H., & Schwartz, S. (2016). Social support networks among diverse sexual minority populations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000117
4. Human Dignity Trust. (2026, February 20). Ghana. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/country-profile/ghana/
5. Human Dignity Trust. (2026, February 19). Nigeria. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/country-profile/nigeria/
6. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
7. Patients Association. (2026, February 6). Next of kin. https://www.patients-association.org.uk/next-of-kin
8. Pew Research Center. (2020, June 25). The global divide on homosexuality persists. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
9. The Initiative for Equal Rights. (n.d.). The Initiative for Equal Rights (TIERs). Retrieved February 25, 2026, from https://www.theinitiativeforequalrights.org/
10. UK Government. (n.d.). Make, register or end a lasting power of attorney. GOV.UK. Retrieved February 25, 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney
11. UK Parliament. (2010). Equality Act 2010 (c. 15). Legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
12. UK Parliament. (2013). Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (c. 30). Legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents/enacted