Special Issue

Emerging Adulthood
1-10
Constructing the Meaning of “Family” ª 2018 Society for the
Study of Emerging Adulthood
and SAGE Publishing
in the Context of Out-of-Home Care: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
An Exploratory Study on Residential DOI: 10.1177/2167696818800846
journals.sagepub.com/home/eax

Care Leavers in Harare, Zimbabwe

Getrude Dadirai Gwenzi1

Abstract
Care leavers’ family lives are not well-documented in Global South literature. The West has seen an increase in studies focusing
on the family concept. This article focuses on the concept of “family” and family membership from the perspective of care leavers.
Data from semistructured interviews and “family lists” with 30 care leavers (aged 18–25) from Zimbabwe are presented. The
findings suggest that although there is evidence of heteronormative definitions of “family” and ideas of “family” as biological, new
definitions are coming up in the developing world. Some participants acknowledge nonbiological definitions of family based on
connectivity, co-residence, affective practices, family contact, and other forms of family display in the context of out-of-home care.
The Zimbabwean cultural influence is highlighted as a factor in care leavers’ constructions of “family” especially during the
emerging adulthood stage. Practical implications for social policy, those working with care leavers, and wider society are
discussed.

Keywords
care leavers, out-of-home care, family meanings, transition into adulthood, residential care, Zimbabwe

There is a growing interest in how family is perceived by dif-
ferent groups in contemporary society (Powell, Blozendahl,
Geist, & Steelman, 2010). Children and young people’s con-
ceptualization of the family has also become a subject of
interest (Kendrick, 2013), whereas before, our knowledge of
children’s experience of family life came from adults, profes-
sionals, or adult’s recollections of their childhood experiences
(Morrow, 1998). The current study expands previous research
by exploring care leaver conceptualizations of family in
Zimbabwe.
Alternative care for children living outside of family care,
sometimes referred to as substitute care, means care for chil-
dren outside of their families (O’Loughlin & O’Loughlin,
2012). There has been considerable research on why children
find themselves in need of substitute care, bringing out factors
such as abuse, family discord, and family disruption (Rutter,
2000). Other research has also shown that children are some-
times removed from their family homes due to inadequate par-
ental care or neglect (Attar-Schwartz, 2008). Children and
young people in out-of-home care experience care from multi-
ple sources including their family of origin, child welfare agen-
cies, health, and education systems as well as those with whom
they currently live (Sng, 2009). According to Holland (2009),
the relationships of children in care are complex, broad, and
central to their everyday emotional and practical well-being.
The process of care leavers making the transition from care
to adulthood and independent living has been well-documented
in different country contexts (e.g., Anghel, 2011; Ibrahim &
Howe, 2011; Van Breda, 2015). Care leavers face challenges
relating to their social relationships due to the absence of a car-
ing family environment in institutional care (Driscoll, 2018).
However, most care leaver studies have been in the Global
North and there remains a gap in our understanding of care lea-
vers’ family lives in the Global South as will be discussed in the
following sections.
This article therefore examines how care leavers define
“family” and who forms part of their families considering their
1
Department of Sociology and Social Policy, Lingnan University, New Terri-
tories, Hong Kong
Corresponding Author:
Getrude Dadirai Gwenzi, MSocSci (Social Policy), BSW, Department of
Sociology and Social Policy, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun,
New Territories, Hong Kong.
Email: getrudegwenzi@ln.hk
2 Emerging Adulthood
residential care history. The interpretive study on which this
article is based sought to develop a more nuanced account of
the lives of care leavers, highlighting their construction of
“family” and the meanings they attach to it. The study drew
upon social constructionist approaches which view “family”
meanings as both individual and social creations: the outcome
of individual reflections as well as social processes and interac-
tions (McCarthy, 2012). Processes of construction, reconstruc-
tion, and deconstruction of familial belonging lie at the center
of recent theorizations of intimate life (Stoilova, Roseneil,
Carter, Duncan, & Phillips, 2017, p. 78).
Conceptualizing Family
Both the Western and non-Western worlds identify some form
of family as part of society’s foundation (Trask, 2009).
Although there have been many structural changes in the fam-
ily over the years, it is still being regarded as the preferred site
for raising children (Welch, 2018). This is also evident in glo-
bal legislative instruments such as, the United Nations (2009)
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, which states
that:
The family, being the fundamental group of society and the natural
environment for the growth, well-being and protection of children,
efforts should primarily be directed to enabling the child to remain
in or return to the care of his/her parents, or when appropriate,
other close family members. (p. 2)
Some scholars emphasize the continued significance of the
“collective” dynamics of family (Kehily & Thomson, 2011;
Moore, 2011) and the idea of the family as a pervasive cultural
symbol (Ammons & Kelly, 2015), particularly in least devel-
oped countries. Therborn (2006) highlights that family life in
Africa, although impacted by global economic and cultural
processes, still shows evidence of high fertility rates, patriar-
chal systems, and an enduring extended family system.
On the other hand, there has been a radical shift from ideas
of “family” as a structural unit (Finch, 2007). Traditional func-
tionalist ideas viewed the family as the center of procreation,
socialization of children, identity formation, and socioeco-
nomic support for its members (Trask, 2009). The shift sees the
new sociology of “family” focusing on conceptualizations that
are based more on the “doing” of family things rather than
“being” a family (Finch, 2007; Morgan, 2011). Family is now
seen not only as a biological or legal connection but as a social
construction made possible through interaction and daily rela-
tional processes (Holstein & Gubrium, 1999).
The family in sociology has also been discussed in terms of
personal communities (Pahl & Spencer, 2004). Scholars have
stated that “those individuals who play a family-like role in
people’s lives, who behave like family, or are treated as family
should be defined as “family” (Pahl & Spencer, 2010, p. i). The
notion of “personal life” incorporates relationships that are
based more on intimacy and interconnections (Edwards & Gil-
lies, 2012; Edwards, McCarthy, & Gillies, 2012; Smart, 2007).
The present study draws from these different conceptualiza-
tions of “family” to explore family conceptualizations by
care-experienced adults.
Conceptualizing Family in
Out-of-Home Care
Few studies have applied the advances in the field of the sociol-
ogy of family and intimate life in research about children in
care (Holland & Crowley, 2013). Scholars have studied posta-
doption “family relationships” (Jones & Hackett, 2012; Mac-
Donald, 2017) and emphasize the shift away from traditional
conceptualizations of the family which are based only on bio-
logical relations. A recent study by Studsrød, Ellingsen, Guz-
mán, and Espinoza (2018) investigated how child welfare
social workers conceptualize “family” and how they relate to
the term “family” in their practice. This study in three countries
(Norway, Chile, and Mexico) showed that social workers now
acknowledge various family forms and displays, again moving
away from an emphasis on biological ties, to focus on
networks.
The “displaying family” concept (Finch, 2007) explores
complex social relationships that may be understood as “family
relationships.” These relationships are in a constant state of
renegotiation (Kendrick, 2013). The multilayered experiences
of children who have been separated from their biological fam-
ilies have been well-studied (e.g., Gabb & Silva, 2011; McIn-
tosh, Dorrer, Punch, & Emond, 2011) and there is evidence
that emphasizes the complexity of these relationships (Davies,
2012; Mason & Tipper, 2008). The quality of their relation-
ships shown through love, care, and support sometimes over-
rides structural relationships (Mason & Tipper, 2008).
McCarthy (2012) discusses the “language of family” and
how paying more attention to how individuals speak of family
may provide insight into how they make sense of their rela-
tional experiences in different contexts. For instance, a study
in the UK found evidence of “family-like” relationships in resi-
dential care, where children used familial words such as
“mother” or “father” and “brothers” or “sisters” to refer to care
staff and fellow housemates, respectively (Kendrick, 2013).
Fowler (2015) explored care relationships between caregivers
and children in Scotland and found that caregivers struggled
to describe their role as both professionals and parental figures.
Removal from their birth families and being placed in alter-
native care may raise lifetime questions about children’s iden-
tities as members of the families of origin and the degree to
which they can ever feel like they are “real” members of the
new families they find themselves in (Samuels, 2009). The
ambiguous loss theory (Boss, 2007) explains how when indi-
viduals suffer loss, they may retain images of the lost loved one
as psychologically present even though physically absent.
Samuels (2009) used the term “familial im(permanence)” to
describe the family relationships of foster care leavers. The
lack of a legally permanent family membership complicates the
experience of care leavers. In addition, their relationships and
Gwenzi
memberships in different family systems can be described as
ambiguous (Cushing, Samuels, & Kerman, 2014).
As stated earlier, most of these studies are based in the West
or Global North societies. Notably, Neimetz (2011) provides an
Asian context of family roles within the residential care con-
text. Pinkerton (2011) also notes the lack of data on leaving
care in Africa, China, India, and South America. Islam and Ful-
cher (2016) compiled residential care practices in the Middle
East and Asian context, which contribute to the dearth of
research in the Global South context, but note that there is still
a need for evidence of residential care in non-English speaking
worlds.
Family and Leaving Care
Emerging adulthood is a stage between adolescence and adult-
hood, marked by young people becoming more independent
from parental figures and forming a separate identity (Arnett,
2000; Schwartz, Côté, & Arnett, 2005). Across various cultural
and ethnic groups, the same characteristics of this transitional
phase from adolescence have been observed (Pryce & Samuels,
2010). Care leavers also go through the stage of emerging
adulthood when they are expected to leave state care and live
as independent adults. Care leavers have been found to struggle
to make this transition in the absence of support (Bond, 2018).
Scholars have highlighted the need for care leavers to have a
strong social support network in their immediate environments
(e.g., Tanur, 2012; Van Breda & Dickens, 2017). This support
network often includes family, friends, and kin or extended
family.
All these relationships are acknowledged as being part of
care leavers’ support network, yet little is known about care
leavers’ conceptualizations of “family.” The Child Protection
Society in Zimbabwe highlighted that care leaver transition
challenges were due to a lack of capacity and unavailability
of birth relatives to provide social support (Mhongera &
Lombard, 2016). Due to the demand for space in residential
facilities, particularly state dormitory-style facilities, fast
reunifications with existing family members are facilitated by
the probation officers, often without proper investigation
(Gwenzi, 2018), which often fail. Mhongera and Lombard
(2016) also found evidence of adolescents in Zimbabwe lack-
ing adequate social support during and after care, resulting in
poverty. Several of the adolescents in institutional care
reported not being satisfied with their familial relationships
(Mhongera & Lombard, 2016). A study by Hyde, Fullerton,
Lohan, Dunne, and Macdonald (2017) in the UK found that
relationships with birth family as reported by care leavers were
characterized by high levels of conflict and estranged relation-
ships with birth family members.
Background and Study Locale
The present study was conducted in Zimbabwe, a country in
sub-Saharan African. Child welfare policy in Zimbabwe func-
tions on a six-tier safety net system which places the biological
3
family and extended family as first options of care for children
needing alternative care (National Orphan Care Policy, 1999).
However, Zimbabwean family life has transformed over the
years and affected these traditional safety nets. The fragmenta-
tion of Zimbabwean family life can be attributed to globaliza-
tion, the weakening of indigenous religion and culture,
escalating poverty, and the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS
(Taringa & Maposa, 2017). Furthermore, the country’s social,
political, and economic unraveling after 1990 led to a “crisis-
driven” mass out-migration (Crush & Tevera, 2010, p. 1).
Families disintegrated as a result, which meant in some cases,
children were left in child-headed households, leading to the
emergence of “diaspora orphans” (Kufakurinani, Pasura, &
McGregor, 2014). The nuclear family ideal that has been per-
petuated since the rise of the Zimbabwean urban middle class
also shifted the focus away from the role of the extended family
as a source of support for orphans and vulnerable children
(OVC; Chirozva, Mubaya, & Mukamuri, 2007). Francis-
Chizororo (2010) attributes the increase in child-headed house-
holds and OVCs living in institutions to the disintegrating family
and community support networks. However, results from data
received on residential care in 140 countries (Petrowski, Cappa,
& Gross, 2017) found that Greece and Zimbabwe were the only
two countries with data dating from before 2006. It is, therefore,
difficult to confirm the actual numbers of children being placed
in institutions over the years and why.
Method
Thirty care leavers aged 18–25 were purposively selected, as
part of an ongoing study, through their former institutions.
Only one institution currently running a transitional home for
young adults over 18 had care leavers still living on the pre-
mises. Nine institutions were selected with assistance from the
Department of Social Services in the Ministry of Labour and
Social Services in Harare. Care leavers whose records were
available at the institutions, specifically a telephone number
and a residential address in Harare, were included. Care leavers
are generally a hard-to-track group (Ward & Henderson, 2003),
especially when records of their discharge are missing or in
cases where there are no records. Convenience and snowball
sampling were used to reach the target number of care leavers
who had been discharged from the other institutions.
Ethical approval was granted by Lingnan University
Research Ethics Committee and the Ministry of Labour and
Social Services in Harare on condition that confidentiality of
research participants would be strictly kept. As such, the find-
ings presented in this article contain pseudonyms of the care
leavers’ names, and the names of their institutions are not
mentioned.
Characteristics of the Care Leavers
The sample included 17 males and 13 females. At the time of
the interviews conducted between August 2017 and January
2018, 10 males resided at a transitional home, 5 were married
4 Emerging Adulthood
and living with their spouse, 3e were cohabitating, 5 lived with
their relatives and were still single, another 5 lived in a street
shelter, 1 was a single parent living with her children, and 1
lived with a foster parent. Most of the care leavers had at least
an Ordinary Level education, except one who only completed
Grade 10 (Form 3). Half of the sample (n ¼ 15) reported that
they had experienced multiple placements during their time
in care. For instance, Alan had lived in three different place-
ments for the 18 years that he was in care. Most of the care lea-
vers still had a recollection of why they ended up in care,
except four, who had been admitted at a very young age. Those
who could remember stated that they were separated from their
birth family due to neglect, orphan hood, physical/sexual
abuse, and abandonment.
Interview Procedure
The study sought to answer the questions what and who is
“family” from the care leaver’s perspective. The constructivist
theoretical foundation set the tone for a focus on interactive
patterns and subjective understandings of family by the
participants.
The family list and the verbal interview (Levin, 1999) were
utilized to collect data with some moderations to suit the study
context. For instance, the methods were originally developed
for classroom settings. The family list and verbal interview pro-
vide a means to assess an individual’s perception of what or
who constitutes a family and the nature of the relationships
between them and the identified family members (Levin,
1999). The verbal interview together with the family list pro-
vided a triangulation of data collection methods. This tech-
nique was particularly selected because it is a “simple and
relatively rapid way of moving into an emotionally compli-
cated area” (Levin, 1999, p. 101).
Care leavers were asked, “When you think of your family,
who do you think of?” and then to make a list of those individ-
uals. A semistructured interview guide and the family list
steered the verbal interviews which included accounts of why
certain individuals were included or excluded from the
“family” lists, the care experience, and relationships with fam-
ily and other individuals in the context of out-of-home care.
Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr. Participants were inter-
viewed at their current places of residence and where that did
not suit, restaurants or coffee shops were utilized as interview
spaces. Language of the interviews was English, although par-
ticipants could mix with their native (Shona). Interviews were
audio-recorded.
Thematic Analysis
Interview audio files were fully transcribed by the researcher.
Family lists were typed into the interview transcripts and ana-
lyzed simultaneously. Shona words were transcribed in the
form they were spoken and italicized to show a difference in
language and English translations were added in parentheses.
The Shona–English translation was aided by the researcher’s
own knowledge of the Shona language. The thematic analysis
aided by NVIVO 12 qualitative analysis software led to pat-
terns emerging from the data and an exploration of underlying
themes in the data. A literature review aided the coding process
and interpretation of patterns in the data. Main themes for each
transcript were identified, followed by shared themes across
participant groups and grouping of codes. Word frequencies
were also run to show words used to describe “family” by the
care leavers.
Findings
Defining Family
The Biological Relatedness section presents the various sub-
themes under the broad theme of family definitions. There were
different definitions of family from the care leavers based on
whom they chose to include in their “family” lists and their
interview accounts. Two subthemes were identified, which
were drawn from existing literature on how family is being
defined in contemporary society.
Biological Relatedness
Based on the word frequency analysis, most care leavers base
their definitions of family on biological relatedness. Common
words used to describe family were children, parents, relatives,
grandparents, and sister, which all fall within the traditional
definition of family or nuclear family. Being related to individ-
uals by blood was a foundation for them being included in the
“family” list. For example, when asked to explain reasons for
including certain individuals as “family,” one care leaver
stated:
I include my parents because they gave birth to me, my brother
because I am related to him by blood and my relatives because
of our kinship ties. This doesn’t change. (Kudzi, aged 18)
This subtheme showed that some care leavers acknowledge the
strength of kinship or biological ties even after experiencing
negative experiences with relatives or parents. As one of them
stated:
. . . because I had some time when I had thought that if I could see
my father I could kill him because of the way he used to treat me,
but with time after going to church and receiving counselling I saw
that this is my family, there is nothing I can do to change that.
(Bless, 22)
Another care leaver expressed the same sentiment with differ-
ent words:
I still think family is family. You need them because you can never
be alone in life. (Tapiwa, 21)
These responses suggest the persistence of blood relationships
in family definitions. However, most of the care leavers still
found these blood relationships to be complex and sometimes
Gwenzi
difficult to navigate, especially in care. Tapiwa went on to
state that:
I speak to my father even though he always promises to come back
to visit and never has. Some things in life are just confusing.
(Tapiwa, 21)
For some, there was a missing link in the blood relationship as
evidenced by Tendai, who acknowledged his blood relation-
ship with his mother as the basis for inclusion in his family list
but still felt there was no connection between them:
My mother, it is only a fact that she is my mother that can put her
there, but not that we are connected. (Tendai, 25)
Complex relationships with biological families in Zimbabwe
were also illustrated in instances of mothers who reportedly
abandoned their children after marrying a new spouse. Within
the Zimbabwean culture, it is not uncommon for a new husband
to refuse to care for another man’s children. Hazel, who expe-
rienced this, expressed how this complicated her relationship
with her biological mother and made it difficult for her to con-
sider her as “family”:
My mother lives with another husband, and when my father also
remarried we lived with him because my mother’s new husband
did not want children from another man. Luckily our father took
care of us. I and my mother don’t really talk. I don’t even know
where she lives now, but I heard she has her own children. (Hazel,
22)
The language of referring to her mother as having her “own
children” implies that she does not identify herself as her moth-
er’s child.
Family Display
Care leavers’ accounts of their relationships with the individu-
als in their lives (both biological and nonbiological) also
brought out themes related to “family display” as a basis for
family definitions. Care leavers described experiences with for-
mer and current housemates, relatives, friends, and caregivers
who suggested that they belonged together as a family. For
instance, when asked to define family, one care leaver said:
I think a group of people living together, sharing everything
together. Like here it’s also a family because we live together,
we share everything together. (Patrick, 20)
Frank expressed growing up in the children’s home and never
experiencing living with his biological family. The individuals
who were around him during his childhood and their affective
practices meant that they were family to him:
I grew up knowing only the people I was living with, I thought that
was my family. The love I used to receive and what they used to
provide. The people I grew up with were there for me. (Frank, 18)
5
Also, echoing the affective practices, another care leaver
expressed:
I have my mother and I have my father, but I don’t consider them
as my fundamental family because of my background, but now that
I have other people that have taken care of me, who know me, even
right now if it was to happen that I am involved in a car accident I
ask myself, who is going to react first and who is going to pay my
bills if maybe I am not able to pay my bills. (Tapiwa, 25)
Family-like living and doing things together like family also
came up as reasons why certain individuals were described as
“family.” Residential care in this study involved living together
with other children from different backgrounds in family-like
settings or in dormitory-style residences. It was interesting to
note one care leaver who still lived in a family-based setting
saying:
Here we live like a family. At the moment, we are five and we are a
family. (Farai, 19)
In addition, shared experiences with siblings living together in
the same residential facility were described as influencing one
care leaver’s concept of “family.” He explained his reason for
including his siblings in his family list:
I would maybe include my brothers and sisters because we share
the same background, most of the challenges at the children’s
home we faced together. (Tendai, 25)
The above responses suggest that individuals can be described
as family if they behave like family, lived like family, and pro-
vided care as expected within a family setup. These responses
were contrary to the first conceptualization of family as based
on blood relations. These findings suggest that the experience
of care was positive in creating family-like experiences for
young people. One of the participants above (Farai) was living
in the transitional home, which shows that the same values of
family-like living were instilled in the young men, even when
they began to live independently.
However, not all experiences of residential care were
described as positive and family-like in this study. Most of the
care leavers acknowledged that it was a place that provided
safety, three meals a day, and a warm bath, but it lacked the
affection that others would say they find in a “family.” Most
of the participants who shared these sentiments had lived in
dormitory-style settings. Donald expressed his experience as:
As young people, we learn from what we see, not what we hear. I
can tell a real smile from a plastic smile. When you hold me, I can
tell if there is love or not. I never had a mother, but I could tell the
difference. (Donald, 24)
The study also found evidence of contact being a crucial form
of family display. For example, one care leaver who came into
care at age 6 or 7 (he could not recall the actual date of admis-
sion) and lived there until he was 18 reported never getting
6 Emerging Adulthood
visits from his birth parents or relatives. The only “family” he
knew was the one at the children’s home. Family contact in the
context of out-of-home care often means maintaining family
ties and a sense of belonging to the biological family. In the
absence of family contact, care leavers struggled to understand
their family relationships:
As for me I will be thinking too much, like where is my family?
Like, you want to be a person who grows up with a mother and
father, but here we just live with our big brother [referring to house
manager]. (Allan, 19)
The second part of the study focused on how care leavers
understood their own meanings of family, highlighting the fac-
tors that influenced those meanings. The analysis at this stage
looked beyond definitions of family to a deeper understanding
of how these definitions arose. The Cultural Influence on the
Meaning of Family section presents the main themes.
The Cultural Influence on the
Meaning of Family
All the care leavers identified as Shona people, which suggests
that they subscribed to Shona cultural values. Most of the care
leavers’ views on family were interpreted as being actively
shaped by the Zimbabwean culture, particularly Shona culture.
This study found that Shona culture places a value on one’s
family of origin irrespective of the nature of the relationship
between its members. There were suggestions of a social
expectation of the birth family and this came out when for
instance, one care leaver used a popular Shona proverb: kusina
mai hakuendwe (never venture where your mother is not). This
proverb speaks to the need for the birth mother and how, cultu-
rally, living without one is not ideal.
There were other statements that brought out the influence
of culture on how family meanings are constructed of family
meanings such as:
. . . the reason why I wrote my father is that growing up we were
always told that your father is your first relation, the mother is a
stranger because she came through marriage. So, it starts with the
father, then when the father and mother come together, they are
two and they become a family, then children and all that. That is
how people describe them as family when they have children
together. (Jacob, 19)
The above shows an understanding of “family” that is shaped
by the teachings received by the care leaver while growing
up as well as societal expectations of a nuclear family. The
“we” in his account signifies a collective understanding of fam-
ily definitions.
Totemism played a role in how some care leavers relate or
understand their kinship relations in Zimbabwe. A totem is
described as an animal, plant, or natural object (or representa-
tion of an object) that serves as the emblem of a clan or family
among a tribal group (Makamure & Chimininge, 2015, p. 9).
There was evidence in this study of some care leavers finding
their sense of belonging from individuals around them who
became like “family” based on sharing the same totem with
them even though they were not blood relations. In the practice
of totemism, it is believed that once you share the same totem,
you are connected (Tribal Zone, 2015). One care leaver stated:
. . . I was told that my father’s totem is Shumba [lion] so this lady,
when I met her she is also from the same totem. So, it was like we
are related somehow, and we really connected. (Tendai, 25)
At the emerging adulthood stage, another influence of culture
was seen in the marriage expectations when care leavers decide
to get married. Female care leavers reported needing to find
their birth families when the time came for them to get married.
It is the role of the biological family to be present for the facil-
itation of traditional marriage rites, that is, negotiating roora
[bride price] (Meekers, 1993):
. . . my mother’s sister was supposed to be there for me. Even dur-
ing my traditional wedding, my husband tried to engage them in
such a way that he would give me money to visit them and money
to give them asking them to come, but they did not come because
there was no relationship. (Elizabeth, 25)
Prudence, whose parents had died when she was young, also
expressed how she only got to know her relatives when she got
married. When asked how she felt about her biological family,
she stated:
Now I consider them just because when I got married they were
part of my family, that’s when I got to know them, most of them.
I had to look for them. Now I know I have aunts and other relatives
but when I was living here none of them came to visit me. (Pru-
dence, 24)
This finding suggests the existence of a one-sided relationship
with birth relatives because the care leavers were the ones
searching for them. This adds to the evidence of complex rela-
tionships with birth families while in care. For some of the male
care leavers, growing up and facing decisions such as marriage
meant that they needed to reestablish relations with their birth
families. For instance, when describing his relationship with
his father, Tendai stated:
Because I am growing up and at some point, I will need to get mar-
ried and I will have to go and tell him that now I need to marry, but
the same thing keeps on coming back to my mind asking myself,
but what benefit is there, is he going to help me in any way since
he doesn’t know me? (Tendai, 25)
Family Relationships After Leaving Care
Care leavers’ family relationships after leaving care were
brought out as a main theme in the study. The findings suggest
that thinking about birth family and other social relationships
Gwenzi
became more important after leaving care. Most of the care lea-
vers also alluded to the sheltered life they experienced in resi-
dential care and how leaving care exposed them to the “real
life.” In this case, some of the care leavers admitted that their
mind-sets about family life changed especially after leaving
care and realizing that life was quite difficult without support.
One of them stated:
Before I was 18, I thought I don’t need family in my life. But, what
you face out there shows you the importance of family, no one to
cry to, no one to lean on, when you need medical attention, no one
to take you to the hospital. Family is something really, really
important in life. (Regai, 22)
Care leavers who were living in a street shelter at the time of
the interviews reported failed relationships with birth family
soon after leaving care. One of them stated:
I left the house because I felt isolated, they didn’t even feel like my
real family the way they treated me. I lived with my relatives
because my mother died during child birth allegedly and my father
died in 1995. Because I was always sickly, those relatives didn’t
want anything to do with me. (Donald, 24)
There were unresolved tensions and broken relationships that
further complicated familial relationships as illustrated by
another care leaver:
My mother, I don’t really have a good relationship with her. She is
on drugs and sometimes she is difficult to talk to. I just try to avoid
her. (Wanani, 22)
In the absence of other support, these care leavers reported that
their lives have been difficult since leaving the institution.
Discussion and Conclusion
Although there is an emphasis on the pervasiveness and conti-
nuity of the familial relationship by some family scholars, there
is still no single agreed upon definition of family (Trask, 2009).
This article presented different family definitions for a sample
of Zimbabwean care leavers. The study findings support previ-
ous studies on family conceptualizations which indicate the
complexity of the concept of family. The care leavers in this
study did not have a unified definition of family, but rather how
they defined family was highly contextual and subjective. Jar-
dine (2015) states that the fluidity, complexity, and individual-
ity of family lives is one of the challenges of researching family
lives in any setting.
The study sought to go beyond merely describing what a
family is to a more theoretical explanation of the meaning of
family (McCarthy, 2012). While some care leavers described
“family” in the traditional sense, using words like parents,
brothers, and grandparents, others conceptualized it based on
their experiences with the relationships in their lives, both bio-
logical and nonbiological. Individuals can conceptualize fam-
ily in their own way and that there is no fixed concept of
7
“family” (Miller, 2016). While some indicated biological char-
acteristics were important in defining family, others focused on
definitions based on family practices and display.
Finch (2007) highlighted a decline in the heteronormative
family model, but this study in Zimbabwe found that this ideal
is still held by some. Some of the care leavers’ constructions of
family were based on cultural teachings they received while
growing up. The cultural values of marriage and totemism
encouraged traditional notions of “family” and kinship. In the
Shona culture, the family is described as a large, closely knit
community of people who are believed to have common ances-
try (Taringa & Maposa, 2017). Some care leavers in this study
found a sense of belonging with individuals sharing the same
totem with them and described them as family based on that.
Some care leavers defined family according to “family
practices” such as doing things together, living together, and
sharing experiences highlighting that there exists another con-
ceptualization of family which is not based on biological or
kinship ties. This is in line with contemporary sociological
views on family life (Morgan, 2011; Smart, 2007). Construc-
tions of “family” that include friends, housemates, and other
community members fit in with the idea of “families of
choice.” In the presence of affection and other family practices,
individuals were described as family who were not blood rela-
tions. The concept of co-residence as a prerequisite for inclu-
sion in “who is family” also fits in with the concept of
“doing family” (Morgan, 2011).
Schütz, Sarriera, Bedin, and Montserrat (2015) state that
previous life experiences affect the subjective well-being of
children in residential care as most of their experiences include
abandonment, maltreatment, and neglect. The experience of
pain, loss, and betrayal at the hand of birth family members and
how that influenced conceptualizations of “family” had mixed
responses in this study. While some care leavers had made
peace with their past experiences, others excluded “family”
members who had hurt or betrayed them in the past from their
definitions of family. There was some evidence of unresolved
feelings from care leavers’ past experiences which affected
family membership, for instance, those who had been aban-
doned by their birth mothers. For many adult care leavers, a
lack of knowledge of family or a loss of connection has been
central to the harms they experienced as children as expressed
by some of them in this study (Murray, 2015). Adult care lea-
vers may have questions like, “Who is my family?” (Murray,
2015, p, 19). Care leavers’ desire to know and understand more
about their birth families was shown in this present study, espe-
cially at the leaving care stage.
This study showed that leaving care presented another
opportunity to reevaluate family relationships and, unfortu-
nately, these relationships were not always positive. When
young people leave state care, they find themselves faced
with crucial decisions about many aspects of their lives
including marriage and accommodation (Sulimani-Aidan &
Melkman, 2018). For some care leavers in this study, the rea-
lization that they needed their birth families as a support sys-
tem only came when they reached this stage. They now faced
8 Emerging Adulthood
the task of searching for birth relatives who were previously
unsupportive during care only because of the cultural
requirements of marriage. The literature presented earlier
showed evidence within the local context of an absence of
biological family when leaving care and this finding adds
to that evidence. The complex relationships between care lea-
vers and their families have also been noted by Hyde et al.
(2017) in the UK, who found evidence of a disconnect with
birth family. A number of scholars note the risky period of
vulnerability for care leavers as being the stage of emerging
adulthood (e.g., Cameron et al., 2018; Sulimani-Aidan &
Melkman, 2018) because they often go through it with little
or no support from the biological family.
The experiences of care leavers in constructing their family
definitions and meanings lend weight to the argument on the
continuing relevance of “family” for social policy (Edwards
et al., 2012) and practice with care leavers, particularly when
planning for leaving care, considering and engaging those indi-
viduals whom care leavers consider as important in their lives,
despite them not being blood relations. The complexity and
trauma of searching for biological family after prolonged peri-
ods of separation and uncertain family relationships can be
remedied through improved efforts at family reconstruction
during care. This may include intensifying efforts to document
children’s biographic details at admission, as much as is possi-
ble. For society, this study supports the notion that “family”
matters to young people no matter how it is defined (Morrow,
1998). Care leavers are not a homogenous group and as such,
their conceptualizations of family are also subjective and must
be considered. In conclusion, the study argues in support of the
call for increased usage of contemporary sociologies of per-
sonal life and family practices (Holland & Crowley, 2013), par-
ticularly in the Global South context, so that we further
understand the nuanced family lives of those experiencing
out-of-home care.
Acknowledgment
The research on which this paper is based forms part of a doctoral
study. The author acknowledges the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship for
the research.
Author Contributions
Getrude Dadirai Gwenzi contributed to conception, design, and acqui-
sition, drafted the manuscript, critically revised the manuscript, gave
final approval, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work
ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ammons, S. K., & Kelly, E. L. (Eds.). (2015). Work and family in the
new economy. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Anghel, R. (2011). Transition within transition: How young people
learn to leave behind institutional care whilst their carers are stuck
in neutral. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2526–2531.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist,
55, 469.
Attar-Schwartz, S. (2008). Emotional, behavioral and social problems
among Israeli children in residential care: A multi-level analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 229–248.
Bond, S. (2018). Care-leaving in South Africa: An international and
social justice perspective. Journal of International and Compara-
tive Social Policy, 34, 76–90.
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and
practitioners. Family Relations, 56, 105–111.
Cameron, C., Hollingworth, K., Schoon, I., van Santen, E., Schröer,
W., Ristikari, T., . . . Pekkarinen, E. (2018). Care leavers in early
adulthood: How do they fare in Britain, Finland and Germany?
Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 163–172.
Chirozva, C., Mubaya, C. P., & Mukamuri, B. (2007). The traditional
African family in the age of globalization. Retrieved from http://
pdfs.sematicscholar.org/d503/7c76d57d5c0e946873b34dbfa
b484fd9a5e9.pdf
Crush, J., & Tevera, D. (2010). Exiting Zimbabwe. In J. Crush & D.
Tevera (Eds.), Zimbabwe’s exodus: Crisis, migration, survival
(pp. 1–49). Oxford, England: African Books Collective.
Cushing, G., Samuels, G. M., & Kerman, B. (2014). Profiles of rela-
tional permanence at 22: Variability in parental supports and out-
comes among young adults with foster care histories. Children and
Youth Services Review, 39, 73–83.
Davies, H. (2012). Affinities, seeing and feeling like family: Explor-
ing why children value face-to-face contact. Childhood, 19, 8–23.
Driscoll, J. (2018). Strangers and estrangement: Young people’s rene-
gotiations of birth and foster family relationships as they transition
out of care and the implications for the state as parent. Children’s
Geographies, 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2017.1422209
Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2012). Farewell to family? Notes on an
argument for retaining the concept. Families, Relationships and
Societies, 1, 63–69.
Edwards, R., McCarthy, J. R., & Gillies, V. (2012) The politics of
concepts: Family and its (putative) replacements. British Journal
of Sociology, 63, 730–746.
Finch, J. (2007). Displaying families. Sociology, 41, 65–81.
Fowler, N. (2015). “We’re like one big, dysfunctional family”: Strug-
gling to define the role of residential child care workers. Scottish
Journal of Residential Child Care, 14, 19–32.
Francis-Chizororo, M. (2010). Growing up without parents: Socialisa-
tion and gender relations in orphaned-child-headed households in
rural Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies, 36,
711–727.
Gabb, J., & Silva, E. B. (2011). Introduction to critical concepts: Fam-
ilies, intimacies and personal relationships. Sociological Research
Online, 16, 1–5.
Gwenzi
Gwenzi, G. D. (2018). The transition from institutional care to adult-
hood and independence: A social services professional and institu-
tional caregiver perspective in Harare, Zimbabwe. Child Care in
Practice, 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2017.1414034
Holland, S. (2009). Looked after children and the ethic of care. British
Journal of Social Work, 40, 1664–1680.
Holland, S., & Crowley, A., (2013). Looked after children and their
birth families: Using sociology to explore changing relationships,
hidden histories and nomadic childhoods. Child & Family Social
Work, 18, 57–66.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. (1999). What is family? Further
thoughts on a social constructionist approach. Marriage & Family
Review, 28, 3–20.
Hyde, A., Fullerton, D., Lohan, M., Dunne, L., & Macdonald, G.
(2017). Young people’s views on the impact of care experiences
on their ability to form positive intimate relationships. Adoption
and Fostering, 41, 242–253.
Ibrahim, R. W., & Howe, D. (2011). The experience of Jordanian care
leavers making the transition from residential care to adulthood:
The influence of a patriarchal and collectivist culture. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33, 2469–2474.
Islam, T., & Fulcher, L. (2016). Residential child and youth care in a
developing world. Google Scholar. Cape Town, South Africa: The
CYC-Net Press.
Jardine, C. (2015). Constructing family in the context of imprison-
ment: A study of prisoners and their families in Scotland. Retrieved
from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/20995
Jones, C., & Hackett, C. (2012). Redefining family relationships fol-
lowing adoption: Adoptive parents’ perspectives on the changing
nature of kinship between adoptees and birth relatives. British
Journal of Social Work, 42, 283–299.
Kehily, M. J., & Thomson, R. (2011). Displaying motherhood: Repre-
sentations, visual methods and the materiality of maternal practice.
In E. Dermott & J. Seymour (Eds.), Displaying families: A new
concept for the sociology of family life (pp. 61–80). London, Eng-
land: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kendrick, A. (2013). Relations, relationships and relatedness: Resi-
dential child care and the family metaphor. Child & Family Social
Work, 18, 77–86.
Kufakurinani, U., Pasura, D., & McGregor, J. (2014). Transnational
parenting and the emergence of “diaspora orphans” in Zimbabwe.
African Diaspora, 7, 114–138.
Levin, I. (1999). What phenomenon is family? Marriage & Family
Review, 28, 93–104.
MacDonald, M. (2017). “A picture of who we are as a family”: Con-
ceptualizing post-adoption contact as practices of family display.
Child & Family Social Work, 22, 34–43.
Makamure, C., & Chimininge, U. (2015). Totem, taboos and sacred
places: An analysis of Kalanga people’s environmental conserva-
tion and management practices. International Journal of Huma-
nities and Social Science Invention, 14, 7–12.
Mason, J., & Tipper, B. (2008) Being related: How children define and
create relatedness. Childhood, 15, 441–460.
McCarthy, J. R. (2012). The powerful relational language of “family”:
Togetherness, belonging and personhood. The Sociological
Review, 60, 68–90.
9
McIntosh, I., Dorrer, N., Punch, S., & Emond, R. (2011). “I know we
can’t be a family, but as close as you can get”: Displaying families
within an institutional context. In E. Dermott & J. Seymour (Eds.),
Displaying families: A new concept for the sociology of family life
(pp. 175–194). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meekers, D. (1993). The noble custom of Roora: The marriage prac-
tices of the Shona of Zimbabwe. Ethnology, 32, 35–54.
Mhongera, P. B., & Lombard, A. (2016). Who is there for me? Eval-
uating the social support received by adolescent girls transitioning
from institutional care in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from http://resea
rchgate.net/publication/303290649_
Miller, L. R. (2016). Definition of family. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), The
Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of family studies (pp. 1–7). New
York, NY: Sage.
Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships,
and motherhood among Black women. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Morgan, D. H. J. (2011). Rethinking family practices. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrow, V. (1998). Understanding families: Children’s perspectives.
London, England: National Children’s Bureau Enterprises.
Murray, S. (2015). Good practice in supporting adult care-leavers.
In Supporting adult care-leavers: International good practice
(pp.183–196). Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1t89567.15
National Orphan Care Policy. (1999). Retrieved from https://www.
k4health.org/sites/default/files/national_action_plan_for_orpha
ns_and_other_vulnerable_children.pdf
Neimetz, C. (2011). Navigating family roles within an institutional
framework: An exploratory study in one private Chinese orpha-
nage. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 585–595.
O’Loughlin, M., & O’Loughlin, S. (2012). Substitute care for chil-
dren. In M. O’Loughlin & S. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Social work with
children and families (pp. 121–149). Carlifornia, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: Not simply
families of “fate” or “choice.” Current Sociology, 52, 199–221.
Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2010). Family, friends, and personal commu-
nities: Changing models in the mind. Journal of Family Theory &
Review, 2, 197–210.
Petrowski, N., Cappa, C., & Gross, P. (2017). Estimating the number
of children in formal alternative care: Challenges and results. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 70, 388–398.
Pinkerton, J. (2011). Constructing a global understanding of the social
ecology of leaving out of home care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 33, 2412–2416.
Powell, B., Blozendahl, C., Geist, C., & Steelman, L. C. (2010).
Counted out: Same-sex relations and Americans’ definitions of
family. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Pryce, J. M., & Samuels, G. M. (2010). Renewal and risk: The dual
experience of young motherhood and aging out of the child welfare
system. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 205–230.
Rutter, M. (2000). Children in substitute care: Some conceptual con-
siderations and research implications. Children and Youth Services
Review, 22, 685–703.
10
Samuels, G. M. (2009). Ambiguous loss of home: The experience of
familial (im)permanence among young adults with foster care
backgrounds. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1229–1239.
Schütz, F. F., Sarriera, J. C., Bedin, L., & Montserrat, C. (2015). Sub-
jective well-being of children in residential care centers: Compar-
ison between children in institutional care and children living with
their families. Psicoperspectivas, 14, 19–30.
Schwartz, S. J., Côté, J. E., & Arnett, J. J. (2005). Identity and agency
in emerging adulthood: Two developmental routes in the indivi-
dualization process Youth & Society 37 201–229.
Smart, C. (2007). Personal life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Sng, R. (2009). Family therapy for kids without families: Working
systemically with children and young people in residential care.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 30,
247–259.
Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Carter, J., Duncan, S., & Phillips, M.
(2017). Constructions, reconstructions and deconstructions of
“family” amongst people who live apart together (LATs). The Brit-
ish Journal of Sociology, 68, 78–96.
Studsrød, I., Ellingsen, I. T., Guzmán, C. M., & Espinoza, S. E. M.
(2018). Conceptualisations of family and social work family prac-
tice in Chile, Mexico and Norway. Social Policy and Society, 17,
1–13.
Sulimani-Aidan, Y., & Melkman, E. (2018). Risk and resilience in the
transition to adulthood from the point of view of care leavers and
caseworkers. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 135–140.
Tanur, C. (2012). Project Lungisela: Supporting young people leaving
state care in South Africa. Child Care in Practice, 18, 325–340.
Taringa, N. T., & Maposa, R. S. (2017). African ethics and the family
life: Attestations of the socio-religious ethics in the Shona society,
Zimbabwe. Boleswa, 4, 134–143.
Emerging Adulthood
Therborn, G. (2006). African families in a global context. Uppsala,
Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Trask, B. (2009). Globalization and families: Accelerated systemic
social change. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Tribal Zone. (2015). Totems. Retrieved from http://www.tribalzone.ne
t/history/totems.htm
United Nations. (2009). Guidelines for the alternative care of children.
65th Plenary Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/prote
ction/alternative_care_Guidelines_English.pdf
Van Breda, A. D. (2015). Journey towards independent living: A
grounded theory investigation of leaving the care of Girls & Boys
Town, South Africa. Journal of Youth Studies, 18, 322–337.
Van Breda, A. D., & Dickens, L. F. (2017). The contribution of resi-
lience to one-year independent living outcomes of care-leavers in
South Africa. Children and Youth Services Review, 83, 264–273.
Ward, J., & Henderson, Z. (2003). Some practical and ethical issues
encountered while conducting tracking research with young people
leaving the “care” system. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 6, 255–259.
Welch, V. (2018). Talking back to “family,” “family troubles,” and
“the looked-after child.” Sociological Research Online, 23,
197–218.
Author Biography
Getrude Dadirai Gwenzi is a PhD Candidate in the Department
of Sociology and Social Policy at Lingnan University, Hong
Kong. She is a recipient of a Hong Kong PhD fellowship. Her
areas of interest are children without parental care (CWPC),
children in institutions and care leavers.