The first priority must always be ensuring the child’s physical and emotional safety. In cases of intrafamilial child torture, this is not possible if the child remains in the care or custody of the caregiver who inflicted, enabled, or failed to stop the torture. Continued contact places the child at risk for further injury, retaliation for disclosure, or escalation of abuse. Safety planning that does not include separation from the parents inflicting the torture is insufficient in cases of torture.

Professionals often describe ICT cases as having “a different feel”—an uneasiness that goes beyond severe discipline or even chronic maltreatment. ICT is not simply a more extreme version of the categories we already know. It represents a distinct pattern of behaviors in which the caregiver imposes ongoing domination and degradation.

While ICT frequently involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect, it is the structure and intent behind the acts that set it apart.

This blog series aims to bring clarity, language, and shared understanding to an issue that professionals have struggled to articulate for decades.

In this first post, we focus on the foundational question: What exactly is Intrafamilial Child Torture, and why does naming it matter?