July 12, 1999
US Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
Attn: Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D.
Diane D. Broadhurst, M.L.A.
James Bell Associates
Your report "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect" (NIS-3) contains grievous errors on page 6-11, Table 6-4:
Fewer than 20 cases does not make a single one of the above categories hard to calculate an estimate. Even if there had been only one Male Perpetrator who was a Natural Parent, the percentage would have been 0.07%, which hardly invalidates that statistic, nor does it make it erroneous nor insignificant. In fact, there aren't too many more significant figures than that in this entire country, so this is not a good excuse at all for omitting this figure. Furthermore, you have a lower number than that on page 5-26.
It is mathematically impossible that both Male Perpetrator and Unknown in the Fatal Child Abuse row could have been less than 20 cases. If either one of them was less than 20, then the other one would have been greater than 310, which again is a highly significant number. I submit to you that this could not have been a mere oversight nor mathematical error for people with your kinds of education backgrounds and degrees.
It is mathematically impossible that all three categories of Female Perpetrator (Natural Parents, Other Parents, and Others) could have been less than 20. If two of these categories had been less than 20, then the third one would have been greater than 1,130, which is a VERY significant number. Considering that 1,170 of 1,500 child murders are perpetrated by females, and that 80% of child murders are perpetrated by natural parents, it's likely that this category (Natural Mothers killing their own offsrping) is closer to 1,170 than it is to 1,130, but it is impossible that it could have been less than 20 cases. Again, it's difficult to imagine that a person with a Ph.D. by their name would have accidentally allowed such a serious and obvious error to go to national publication.
Considering that when broken down by perpetrator's age, as in Table 6-5, the percent of "Unknown" rarely exceeded 30%, it's logical to assume that the percent of cases where the sex of the Perpetrator is unknown didn't exceed 30%, which means that there were at least 231 Male Perpetrators of Fatal Child Abuse. There should not have been an asterisk in this category, nor in at least one of the three rows Natural Parents, Other Parents, or Others. It is not possible that there were fewer than 20 cases in at least 2 of the 4 categories in this column. Intentionally obfuscating these crucial data points is evidence of an anti-male or pro-feminist, and thus destructive and anti-family, agenda.
Please don't insult Americans' intelligence this way. Doing so hardly endears you to the public you presumably serve. Far worse, it misleads and distracts both voters and politicians from the true source of child abuse, which makes it impossible to resolve the real problem of child abuse. That makes you an accomplice to a crime--the crime of murder, of child murder to boot. We can easily do the extrapolations to determine what it is you are so desperately but futilely trying to conceal--that females commit something in the range of 30-70 times as many child murders as natural fathers.
We understand that this is not a comfortable fact for feminists to admit, but you should release the correct figures nonetheless. Children's lives are at stake here, and if you don't release those figures (both the ones above 20 cases as well as the ones below 20 cases), child murders and abuse will only continue to increase, and the blood of each additional dead child will be on your hands. You owe at least this much to the 1.2 million Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, as well as all American fathers, who have been and are still being inaccurately characterized by the media as "child abusers".