This is a timely article which should have attracted far more comment, although I don't doubt that many read it and did not respond, there being no reason to challenge any of it. However in challenging very persistent stereotypes it does demonstrate a new maturity in the fight against the maltreatment of minors. The author Elizabeth Harrop is to be congratulated for taking the risk in being so forthright.

My only concern, which is not directed at the author, is that it would be infinitely more preferable to refer to 'child maltreatment' in lieu of simply 'abuse', which unnecessarily rules out the very large number of children who suffer harm through neglect and other causes. Arguably, neglect and lack of care often provide the environment for other maltreatment including abuse to occur.

"Child maltreatment, sometimes referred to as child abuse and neglect, includes all forms of physical and emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, and exploitation that results in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, development or dignity. Within this broad definition, five subtypes can be distinguished – physical abuse; sexual abuse; neglect and negligent treatment; emotional abuse; and exploitation."

http://www.who.int/topics/child_abuse/en/

There are two new recent books on the issue of female child abusers that I would thoroughly recommend reading:-

Female Sexual Predators: Understanding Them to Protect Our Children and Youths (Forensic Psychology)

http://www.amazon.com/Female-Sexual-Predators-Understanding-Psychology/dp/0313366292

Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment

http://www.amazon.com/Female-Sexual-Offenders-Assessment-Treatment/dp/0470683430

Johnny Rotten:"whenever, I am alone on a quiet street at night and I see a woman approaching me I always run into the nearest home"

Ah, fatuous as always. Well done, Johnny, you never fail to live down to our expectations.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the evidence is clear that in every category of child maltreatment except sexual abuse the mother is most likely the perpetrator.

Has anyone seen any kind of advertising fromthe people at NAPCAN or their partners pointing this basic fact out?

I am a male victim of intimate partner abuse and having a hard time with the NSW government to recognise it as such...

You can read more of my story here http://mencanbeabusedtoo.wordpress.com/

This article is a very superficial examination of the statistics and data on child abuse and in consequence some very inaccurate and unhealthy assumptions have been drawn. To quote any statistical information on child abuse requires clarification as to whether such statistics relate to `Reported' cases, `Substantiated' cases, or `Legally proven cases'.
I suspect that the statistics used were `Reported' cases in which instance the vast majority of such cases are disregarded by Child Protection authorities as not requiring further inquiry as they were made for mistaken, mischievous, or malicious reasons, although a parent's name will be entered into their records. It is usually the mothers name which is recorded, as parent with whom the child resides, and the primary caregiver - it is false to make any assumption that the mother or the father is necessarily the alleged abuser.
If Child Protection authorities decide to make further inquiries, they may `substantiate' that a child has been abused and again in most cases they cannot identify the abuser but the mother's name will be recorded in their files as the parent with whom the child resides and primary caregiver. Substantiation by a Child Protection worker is not proven abuse as it is unchallenged and untested by legal process and at best, can only therefore be taken as a opinion based on a very limited collection, analysis, and examination of the evidence, with contra-indicative evidence only rarely being considered.
It is only cases which are actually proven in a Children's Court that can be taken as valid evidence that a child has been abused and in many cases the alleged abuser is not identifieds. Such deteminations by the Children's Court are to a low level of proof of `Balance of Probabilities'.
The only statistics regarding the gender of the abuser which have any validity whatsoever, therefore, are the cases proven in a Criminal Court. Any assumptions drawn on any other statistics regarding the gender of child abusers is entirely persumptuous. This debate is pointless and based on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of statistics and data.