Citipointe Church in Phnom Penh 2008 # 4

I sent an email to Helen Sworn, the Cambodian representative of Chab Dai – a consortium of 40 Christian NGOs to whom Citipointe has, on a few occasions, attributed its policy in relation to C, R and SM.

Dear Mr Ricketson

Please be informed that I will not be in correspondence with you regarding this case.

Citipointe are a member of Chab Dai and are autonomous in their own right as an organisation.  

They are carrying out a good program here in Cambodia and I am certainly not at liberty or legally able to share information on cases of children within their care.  As a member of Chab Dai, they believe, as we do in the protection of children and the desire for children to be cared for by their families in the community as the first option for any child.

Regardless of your history with the family, you do not live here in Cambodia and you clearly do not understand the complexities of the issues we  or our members are dealing with on a daily basis.

Yours sincerely,

Helen Sworn

Director

Some hours after receiving this email from Helen Sworn, C found her copy of the ‘contract’ she has signed with her thumb print, leading me to write to Helen Sworn again.

Dear Helen

How disappointing that you should respond to my email with righteous indignation rather than a cool, calm, careful appraisal of the facts.  

How disappointing also that you should announce that you do not wish to enter into any kind of correspondence with me; that you do not intend to answer any questions. Transparency and accountability are clearly not high on your list of priorities. In the absence of any further communication from Chab Dai I will work on the assumption that you have expressed Chab Dai’s official position on this matter.

As the head of Chab Dai in Cambodia you should not need to be reminded but according to the Chab Dai website the organization is committed to “reintegrating their client back into a safe community. The reintegration process includes restoring a client’s relationship with their family, their community and with the society at large.” (NOTE Three and a half years later Citipointe has yet to begin the process of re-integrating R and SM into their family or community.)

In relation to C, R and SM Citipointe is committed to doing precisely the opposite of what Chab Dai stands for. How else can you describe Citipointe’s decision to limit C’s access to her children (and they to her) to 24 hours a supervised access per year?

I will quote again from Citipointe’s 11th. August email: “R and SM stay with us until they are 18 or until she can provide a safe environment for them, as defined by LICADHO and the Ministry of Social Affairs.”  Given that neither LICADHO or the Ministry of Social Affairs has a definition for a ‘safe environment’ this statement is meaningless.  

Who will decide when C is able to provide her daughters with a ‘safe environment’? Citipointe? Chab Dai? And ‘safe’ in accordance with what criteria? Depending on your definition of ‘safe’ all street kids in Phnom Penh live, by definition, in unsafe environments. The kids that sell books to tourists, though they may live in houses with their parents, live in unsafe environments since they are exposed to the danger of sexual abuse. Indeed all impoverished kids in Cambodia, it could be argued, live in ‘unsafe’ environments. Without a definition of a ‘safe environment’ how can C ever know what she needs to do to have her children returned to her? In one, two or three years time Citipointe can simply assert, regardless of what C may wish, that she is unable to provide them with a ‘safe environment.’ (NOTE three and a half years later it is still impossible to obtain from Citipointe or the Ministry of Social Affairs what constitutes a ‘safe’ environment.)

I wonder if you have seen the contract signed by C and Citipointe?  Are you aware of its contents?  

I doubt very much that you have seen this ‘contract’ because if you had you might have tempered your righteous indignation a little in response to my email. I also doubt very much that you’ve seen it because there is, in fact, no legally binding contract between C and Citipointe?  

The ‘contract’ amounts to one hand-written page which bears the thumb prints of C and her mother V but neither SHE nor Citipointe is a signatory to it. That neither C nor her mother had any idea what they were ‘signing’ with their thumb prints becomes apparent when they agree, in the document, that they are ‘homeless’. In fact, at the time of signing C and mother (along with R, SM and C’s husband) were living in a small apartment a couple of blocks back from the river. Now C and what remains of her family live on a small boat moored close to where C has her drinks stand by day. To describe C and V as ‘homeless’ in this document is quite simply false. And it would have been known to be false by whoever prepared the document. (NOTE: It is worth noting, three and a half years down the track, that I have documentary evidence that C and her children were not homeless at the time C and her mother, V, placed their thump prints on a document that claims they were homeless.)

The problems do not end with this particular falsehood, however. Whilst I have not had the document translated word for word yet it is clear that there is no reference in it to C’s visitation rights, no reference to Citipointe keeping R and SM until they are 18, no reference at all to a ‘safe place’ of any kind. This document is, from a legal point of view, absolutely worthless. Even a Cambodian court would, I think, find it laughable. That a multi-million dollar Christian Church in Brisbane, no doubt with lawyers employed to do its legal work, could get a poor and illiterate Cambodian woman to ‘sign’ such a document beggars belief!

Does Chab Dai assert that the document itself and the circumstances surrounding its ‘signing’ are in accord with Chab Dai policy? A document which accords C no rights at all in relation to her children? If so, I believe that Chab Dai stands condemned as aiding and abetting in the destruction of this particular Cambodian family - the alienation of R and SM from their mother, their family, their religion, their culture, their society.

Again I ask that you or some representative of Chab Dai make yourself available for an interview in which the organization can present its case.

If this ‘contract’ with C is similar to the agreements Citipointe has entered into with the families of other children in its care these must all be looked at and re-written in such a way as to acknowledge the rights of parents not to be alienated from their children. The question is: Does the international NGO community have sufficient courage in its convictions to insist that Citipointe enter into proper contracts with clients or is the international NGOs’ attitude of one of laissez faire – let each and every NGO make up its own set of rules when they arrive here?

How many other NGOs (perhaps under the Chab Dai umbrella) are acting with impunity similar to that which Citipointe has evidenced in action here? Does the international NGO community care? Or is it, as I have expressed it before, open season for any well-meaning (or less than well-meaning) NGO who wants to set up shop and start raising money in their countries of origin for the good work they are doing ‘rescuing’ children who are sex slaves or who have been trafficked?

Will the international NGO community now ask of Citipointe how many of the children in its care fit the description of the SHE refuge’s work to be found on the internet and how many are simply poor kids who have been conned, like C, into ‘signing’ a document the contents of which they were unaware? How many of the children being cared for by Citipointe are actual sexual abuse victims? If NGOs are not accountable, anyone can come to Cambodia, find some orphans (easy to do if you’ve got a pocket full of money), insist on your website that they have been rescued from prostitution, the sex trade and so on and then refuse, on the basis of client confidentiality, to answer any questions about the kids. Is this what the international NGO community wants? Or is prepared to condone?

Whilst the majority of NGOs are, I am sure, respectful of rights of the parents of poor children, respectful of Buddhism as a religion and of Cambodian culture, there are some which believe that it is their God-given right (and duty) to transform poor Buddhist children into Christians in the mold of whatever the NGOs particular brand of Christianity might happen to be.

I have tried, as I think my early emails evidence, to find a way to resolve this matter as amicably as possible. Your email to me makes me realize that this is not possible – at least not as far as Chab Dai is concerned. Consequently, this dispute is now in the public domain and I ask, with several witnesses to my question, for a representative of Chab Dai to make him or herself available for an interview. If your email really does represent Chab Dai policy worldwide I will get no response at all to this email. This in itself will reveal, for my audience, a distressing truth about Chab Dai – that it condones behavior of the kind Citipointe has evidenced here.

best wishes

James Ricketson

I received no response to this email from Chab Dai – despite copying it to Chab Dai’s head offices in the United Kingdom and the United States. At the very least Chab Dai is turning a blind eye to the activities of its member organizations – even if these activities involve, as is the case with Citipointe, ’stealing’ children.

Meanwhile, Naly Pilorge, head of one of the biggest and most highly respected Human Rights organizations in Cambodia, was likewise refusing to meet me with to discuss this clear case of human rights abuse. Nor did she or any member of LICADHO respond to my invitation to make themselves available to speak on behalf of LICADHO about the responsibilities of NGOs in relation to their impoverished clients.

Dear Naly

It is clear that NGOs in Cambodia are free to make up their own rules, to lie, make up documents which they refer to as 'legal' but which are not and then use these phony documents as justification to act as they please - without the international NGO community raising any kind of outcry. In so doing they bring all NGOs into disrepute.

I am shocked, to say the least, to discover that LICADHO does not wish to go on record, on camera, with its own position on this form of exploitation. It remains to be seen whether or not LICADHO, now in possession of plenty of evidence of Citipointe's lying, is prepared to accept its 'contract' with C or will insist on one which is keeping with the original promises made to her.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Three days later I had received no response to this email – despite Ms Pilorge now being in possession of an English translation of the ‘contract’ C and her mother had signed.

18th. November 2008

Dear Naly

I have just conducted a lengthy interview with C in Khmer. I had an interpreter. I  was so astounded by what I was hearing that I asked most questions three times just to make sure that I had not mis-heard or that something had been lost in translation.

If even half of what I heard is true (and I suspect that most of it is) SHE should be closed down immediately. I will not inform you of the contents of my interview other than to mention one fact: C believes that the 'contract' she signed was with LICADHO. This should be of enormous concern to you.

I believe that LICADHO must, immediately, speak with C. I believe that no member of Citipointe should be present. I believe that an independent witness must be present. I believe that the conversation should be recorded so that there is no doubt, later on, what was said. I believe that C should be asked, in a non-threatening way, what she understood to be taking place when she was approached by Citipointe. She must not feel intimidated in any way or feel that she is going to be punished for what she tells you.

One line of questioning should have to do with the parents of the other children being cared for by SHE - with a view to finding out why there are no orphans at SHE.

It should be relatively easy for LICADHO to check out the veracity of most of what C tells you. If her facts check out, SHE and Citipointe are guilty of significant human rights abuses, of fraud and should be shut down.

I trust that you will act of this with haste and keep me informed.

best wishes

James

Citipointe Church in Phnom Penh 2008 # 3

I received no response to my email to Pastor Halloran so traveled to Cambodia to visit C, who was now living on a boat moored at the edge of the river and making a meager living selling cold drinks and snacks. Citipointe had not made contact with C to arrange for her to spend any part of the Water Festival with her children.

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:44:46 +0000

Dear Citipointe

I was delighted yesterday to be met with a happy smiling C clutching $25 she had just earnt renting out the boat she has sublet and on which she, her husband, mother and baby now live. C also has a small stall – selling water, beer, cigarettes, snacks and large grape fruit. Judging from what I saw yesterday her business is doing well.

Who knows where her boat renting business and small stall will lead C. If she works hard she may well do well. She is certainly smart enough to do so. The question now is whether or not she has the discipline to stick with what she is doing. If, in two years time, C has established herself as a modestly successful small businesswoman she may well be in a position to take care of R and SM in a way that does not expose them to the dangers of the street. If this be the case it would be most unfortunate if (a) C had essentially signed her kids away to Citipointe until they are 18 or (b) Citipointe has alienated R and SM from their mother and grandmother through religious indoctrination and/or by allowing mother, grandmother and children only 2 hours of supervised access to each other each month. Such a visitation schedule amounts to 24 hours of supervised access each year or one full day per annum. This is, in my estimation, an abrogation of the human rights of C, V, R and SM. I will go further. I believe it to be a form of child abuse. Citipointe could not get away with such a visitation regime in Australia and, leaving the legal question aside, should not even consider such a regime for moral reasons.

R and SM are C’s children. They do not belong to Citipointe. Citipointe is merely providing what will hopefully be only an interim solution to the family’s problems. Foremost in Citipointe’s thinking should be, “How can we best serve this little family such that they can all live together again in the not too distant future?” What is the logic that informs Citipointe’s insistence that mother, grandmother and children should get to see each other only once a month? And what is the purpose of these visits being supervised? Attributing this policy to LICADHO or Chab Dai is not an answer to the question. I want to know why Citipointe has put in place such policies?

Yesterday, along with thousands of others, I stood at the side of the road and watched a procession of floats pass the Royal Palace – the first of a series of events which are of great cultural significance to Cambodians in the lead up to the Water Festival. Over the past few years I have done so with R, SM, C and V at my side. I trust that during the Water Festival itself C, R, SM, V and I will be able to enjoy the festive atmosphere together – without the presence of Citipointe staff. If this means abrogating Citipointe’s agreement with Chab Dai, so be it. Chab Dai has no right to be dictating to fellow NGOs how they should behave – especially if this involves forcing Citipointe to abrogate the agreement it entered into with C before she agreed to allow Citipointe to foster her children.

best wishes

James Ricketson

On the day of my arrival n Phnom Penh C’s husband called Citipointe to request that R and SM be allowed to spend time with their family during the festival. His request was ignored.

Dear Citipointe

With the passage of four days you have not had the courtesy to either acknowledge or respond to my recent emails regarding R, SM and their mother C. With the passage of four days you have not had the courtesy to respond to the phone call C’s husband made to the SHE office in Phnom Penh two days before the Water Festival began – to ask if R and SM could spend time with them during the Water Festival. You have not allowed C the right to spend any part of the Water festival with R and SM; nor the right of the children to spend any time with their mother during this significant Cambodian festival. In so doing you have breached the agreement you entered into with C five months ago. In doing so you have acted in a way that is contrary to the assurances that Leigh, Helen and Rebecca gave me when we met in Phnom Penh. Citipointe’s actions would be illegal in Australia and should not be allowed in Cambodia. The culture of impunity, it seems, is alive and well not only amongst wealthy and powerful Cambodians but amongst wealthy and powerful NGOs such as Citipointe also.

In Australia my role in the lives of R and SM would be akin to that played by a Godparent, uncle or grandfather. You have denied me meaningful access to these girls also during this festive time and have provided me with no reason for doing so.

In order to provide some cover for it’s actions, Citipointe has assured me on five occasions (three in emails and twice on the telephone) that it went back on its promises made to C (and myself) at the insistence of both LICADHO and Chab Dai. At least as far as LICADHO is concerned, this was a lie – a lie not told once but five times. I am copying this email to Chab Dai so that it can have an opportunity to either deny or confirm that it has played a role in ‘forcing’ Citipointe to abrogate the promises it made to C.

Men and women in Cambodia (with power and money) who induce impoverished parents to give up their sons and daughters with either false promises or money and who then exploit these children are quite rightly thought of as criminals. Human rights organizations in Cambodia (of which LICAHDO is one of many) quite rightly do all they can to prevent this exploitation of children from occurring and punishing those who engage in such activity. Citipointe has induced C to foster her daughters R and SM to Citipointe under what have turned out to be false promises – namely that mother and daughters would have free and regular access to each other. Taking the law into its own hands, and stating that it is acting in accordance with directives from LICADHO and Chab Dai, Citipointe has reduced C’s free access to her children to what amounts to one full day a year. I will point out again, because this is a very serious point, Citipointe’s actions here would be ILLEGAL in Australia. Citipointe knows this to be the case. However, lets just say it was legal in Australia for foster carers to limit access of children to their parents to one day a year, would it be right? Is this Christianity in practice? If circumstances left any of the readers of this email little choice but to foster their children temporarily, how would each of you individually feel if the foster carers then told you that you could see your children for only 24 hours a year and even these hours would be supervised by the foster carers?

Citipointe is both deceiving parents who foster their children to the SHE program and those who contribute financially to the SHE programme.  

For an organization which should, in theory, have clear policies in place, the answers to my many questions should be very easy to provide. If Citipointe has any commitment at all to the concepts of accountability and transparency it will respond appropriately to my emails, in writing, by the end of the day. If LICADHO is likewise committed to the concepts of accountability and transparency (which I know to be the case) it will urge Citipointe, in its meeting today, to answer my questions immediately.

In addition to my request that Citipointe answer the various questions I have put to it in my emails I would also like to extend to Citipointe an invitation for a representative of the church to be interviewed for my documentary about C and her family which, as you know, I have been filming for 14 years. I will provide Citipointe with a complete unedited version of the interview so that Citipointe can, if I edit the interview in a way that misrepresents Citipointe’s position vis a vis SHE in general and R, SM and C in particular, sue me for defamation or take whatever steps necessary to have its reputation restored.

I will take this opportunity, since this email is being copied to both LICADHO and Chab Dai, to extend the same invitation to these two organizations also and under the same conditions.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Dear Naly Pilorge

This afternoon Citipointe and LICADHO will meet to discuss the matters I have raised in my emails relating to C and her children. Despite C’s being a 21 year old adult she has not been invited to attend by either Citipointe or LICADHO. Citipointe will no doubt make its case for the alienation of R and SM from their family and culture – though it will do so in terms which make it seem that it is, in some sense, ‘rescuing’ these kids. Citipointe can, it seems, if it so wishes, do what it wants and no one will stop it - certainly not Chab Dai. C’s well being will not be a factor in Citipointe’s decision-making – as evidenced by the fact that it has not, at any point in this past week, sought to discuss the matters raised in my email with C. Perhaps when I have left Phnom Penh and C has no one to act as an advocate for her, Citipointe will find time to go down to the river and speak with her.

C, like many Cambodians, is accustomed to being exploited. Like most Cambodians she all too readily accepts such exploitation as her fate. She wishes the best for her children (whom she loves dearly) and will be very easy to intimidate if she fears that asking for her rights as a mother to be acknowledged may lead to Citipointe not returning R and SM to her. C is well aware that she needs help if she is to break the cycle of poverty that she has been caught up in throughout her life. The operative word here is ‘help’ and help on her terms; not what Citipointe considers, in its Christian zeal, to be help – namely ‘stealing’ her children from her. I use the word ‘stealing’ as it has been used, colloquially, in Australia, to describe Aboriginal children removed from their families at ages similar to those of R and SM and, all too often, given to Christians to bring up. This has, in Australia, given rise to monstrous social and familial wounds that will take generations to heal.

Will the international NGO community in Cambodia, including Chab Dai, simply stand by, mute, and allow this to occur?

I trust that LICADHO and the international community of NGOs will place appropriate pressure on Citipointe to present C with a proper contract – one which is in keeping with the spirit of the Church’s original discussions with C. The terms of the new contract should give C the right to regular meetings with her children without supervision – unless Citipointe can produce cogent evidence that such unsupervised access poses some kind of risk to R and SM. It should be clear in the contract that Citipointe’s primary objective is, at the appropriate time, to return R and SM to C’s care. If Citipointe insists on the use of the phrase ‘safe environment’ it must define what this is.

As for myself, I have been the only consistent adult male figure in C’s life. Her reference to me as ‘Papa’ means much more to her and to me than the way in which the expression is used colloquially. At one point, couple of years ago, C asked me if I would adopt R and take her to Australia so that she could acquire a decent education. I did not pursue this request for a variety of reasons but significant amongst them was my feeling that R belongs with her family, with her community, in the country of her birth.

If any of the facts that I have referred to in my emails are incorrect I invite you and other recipients of my emails to correct my mistakes. If you feel that I have drawn the wrong conclusions from the facts available to me, please le me know. The same applies to Citipointe, Chab Dai and other readers of my emails. If I have inadvertently failed to place the work being done by NGOs with disadvantaged children in a culturally appropriate context please bring this to my attention. If there is any other observation you would like to make (along with other readers) that is relevant to the matters being raised here, I can assure you that I will include them (insofar as time and space make possible) in any film I make or article I write.  

best wishes

James Ricketson

...to be continued...

Citipointe Church in Phnom Penh 2008 # 2

Email from Pastor Brian Mulheran

Dear James,

Thank you for your patience concerning our response to you about C and yourself having an access visit with R and S M. I apologize for the initial denial of this request as it has always been the case that the girls are permitted to have supervised access visits with their mother.

Always our first priority, as you could imagine, is the safety of those in our care and we are required to ensure the protection of the girls both legally and morally under Cambodian Law, our agreement with Licadho and our relationship within the Chad Dai Coalition.

I have attached a copy of the Chab Dai Coalition - Child Protection Policy for Visitors for your information and also your commitment to uphold which I am sure you have no problem with at all.

My proposal for the visit is as follows:

2.      You are willing to sign and abide by the Chab Dai Coalition - Child Protection Policy

4.      The Access visit will require the accompanying of two of the SHE Rescue Home Team members

5.      Any costs incurred (for example access to a theme parks etc) for the accompanying of the two Team members on the visit will be met by yourself, and…

We trust that this will be satisfactory to yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Mulheran

Executive Pastor, Citipointe Church

This email resulted in three telephone conversations – two with Rebecca Brewer and one with Brian Mulheran. Both telephone conversations were recorded so that there could be no misunderstanding later on, as to what had been said. In my conversation with Rebecca she informed me that C’s supervised visiting rights to her children had been reduced from two hours every two weeks to two hours per month. The reason given for this was that C had ‘kidnapped’ her daughter and kept her for six days. When Citipointe finally gained possession of R (aged six) again, LICADHO (Rebecca told me) insisted that Chanti’s visitation rights be reduced to once a month. At this point it is clear that C is allowed only 24 hours per year to spend with her children.

Dear Brian and Rebecca

Citipointe’s relationship with LICADHO remains unclear to me however and I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me just what role LICADHO plays in the formulation of Citipointe’s policy in relation to caring for R and SM and other girls that Citipointe is ‘fostering’.

I use the word ‘fostering’ very deliberately. R and SM are not orphans. Their mother and grandmother live just a few streets away from Citipointe’s SHE residences. Nor are either R or SM victims of people trafficking or child prostitution. And nor have R and SM been rescued from a dangerous domestic environment. R and SM’s problems, along with those of their mother C and grandmother V, can be attributed, for the most part, to poverty.  The same applies, of course, to large numbers of kids living in poverty in Phnom Penh and elsewhere in Cambodia.

Citipointe has adopted a role in the lives of these girls which is not dissimilar to the role played by foster-parents worldwide and it has done so, it seems to me, for one very good reason – to give R and SM opportunities in life, through education and proper nourishment, that all too many kids in Cambodia are denied. It is the lack of these opportunities and the poverty that accompanies this lack that leaves poor children in Cambodia vulnerable to exploitation.

 Having adopted the role of foster parents (or ‘foster carers’ if you’d prefer) it is, I believe, important for Citipointe to bear in mind the legislation relating to fostering as it pertains to Queensland – the state in Australia in which Citipointe church is based.

I would like to draw your attention to some pertinent sections of this legislation:

• In deciding in whose care the child should be placed, the Chief Executive

must give proper consideration to placing the child, as a first option, with

kin.

• If a child is removed from the child’s family, it is the aim of authorised

officers working with the child and the child’s family to safely return the child

to the family if possible. (Child Protection Act Part 2, 5 (2f i))

• The child’s need to maintain family and social contacts and their ethnic

and cultural identity must be taken into account and respected by all

parties to this Statement of Commitment. (Child Protection Act Part 2,

5 (2f ii))

• In exercising the powers under the Child Protection Act the Chief Executive

will ensure that:

(i) actions taken, while in the best interests of the child, maintain family

relationships and are supportive of individual rights and ethnic,

religious and cultural identity or values

(ii) the views of the child and the child’s family are considered

(iii) the child and the child’s parents have the opportunity to take part in

making decisions affecting their lives.

(Child Protection Act Part 2, 5 (2d))

Does Citipointe recognize, as it would be legally obliged to in Queensland, that R and SM have a right to maintain family relationships? If so, why were Rosa’s and SM’s mother and grandmother allowed only 2 hours of supervised visit with the girls every two weeks at the outset and only one supervised visit per month now?  

Is Citipointe supportive of the “ethnic, religious and cultural identity or values” of R and SM? If not, why not? If Citpointe is  supportive of the “ethnic, religious and cultural identity or values” of R and SM in what way is this support manifested? The Water Festival is a significant Cambodian event. It is a time when families converge on Phnom Penh to celebrate, engage in festivities and forge the sense of community which is so fundamental to Cambodian culture. It is a time when C and her children should be together - unless, that is, there is strong evidence that their being together would pose a threat to the well being of R and SM. I have known these girls since they were born and have never, not once, seen evidence of neglect by C or V - other, that is, than the kind of 'neglect' that all street kids in Phnom Penh suffer from.

It seems to me, from having visited your website and absorbed its contents, that as far as religion is concerned Citipointe intends to transform R and SM, brought up as Buddhists in a Buddhist culture, into Christians in the Citipointe mold. If I am correct in this assumption (and please correct me if I am wrong) what moral right does Citipointe have to forcibly convert these two young girls to another religion – especially since such a course of action would be against the law in Australia?  

Leaving aside questions of legality, the forcible conversion of R and SM reveals a contempt for Buddhism as a religion and a declaration of the superiority of Christianity.

When I met with Leigh Ramsay, Rebecca Brewer and Helen Shields in June this year I was told that C would have free and regular access to her children whilst in Citipointe’s care. I was told that one day a week they would be able to visit their mother at her home. After my meeting with Leigh, Rebecca and Helen, C asked me whether I thought it was a good idea for R and SM to be (to use the appropriate western terminology) fostered by Citipointe. I did not at the time share my reservations with C about Citipointe’s religious agenda. I figured that all things considered indoctrination into Citipointe’s particular brand of Christianity was a small price to be paid if the girls were to be well fed, receive a decent education and be protected from the various perils that lie in wait for millions of extremely poor Cambodia children – especially those living in cities where the danger of sexual and other forms of exploitation are very high.

Not until some time later did I learn that Citipointe had changed the nature of its relationship with C by getting her to sign a contract which, amongst other things, allows her only two hours of supervised access with her children every two weeks and, more recently, only once a month. When I asked Brian in Brisbane why this change had taken place he insisted that Citipointe is obliged to abide by its membership with Chab Dai and its contractual relationship with LICADHO to restrict C’s and V’s access to R and SM to two hours of supervised visit every two week - and now to two hours every month. This, of course, is no answer at all. It merely shifts the question of causation from Citipointe to Chab Dai and LICADHO. What right do either of these NGOs have to be enforcing or encouraging a fostering relationship between Citipointe and R and SM which would be illegal in Australia? A fostering relationship that carries the very real risk of alienating R and SM from their mother and grandmother and perhaps also the culture they were born into?

In relation to LICADHO if there is any possibility that I have drawn the wrong conclusion from emails sent to me by Helen Shields and from words spoken to me by both Brian and Rebecca on the phone in relation to LICADHO, please clarify for me just what role, if any, LICADHO plays in the formulation of Citipointe fostering policy as manifested in its running of the SHE programme. If indeed LICADHO has induced C to sign a contract with it, a few questions arise. Given that C neither reads nor writes Khmer, was there an interpreter with her when she signed the document? Did she fully understand what she was signing? Did she willingly agree to the draconian conditions placed on her by the contract in terms of visitation rights? Given C’s poverty, her powerlessness and her desire to give her kids opportunities in life that she has never had, did she feel that she had any right at all to question the document placed before her and requiring her thumb print?

In relation to Chab Dai the document you sent to me makes this consortium of Christian NGOs’ policy quite clear. However, what right does Chab Dai have (either legally or morally) to dictate the terms under which children can relate to their families, friends and communities? Given that Chab Dai has money and the families of children in NGO care, by definition, do not, these families are clearly not in a position to negotiate or even ask questions or raise doubts. I am, however. I have a long term relationship with R and SM and do not recognize Chab Dai's right to dictate on what terms I can continue my relationship with these girls - unless, that is, Chab Dai can demonstrate that I am, in some way, a danger to them.

 Could you please provide me with the LICADHO definition of  the “safe environment” you are acting in accordance with and how this is being implemented in practice by Citipointe? Does the LICADHO “definition” make any mention at all of severing contact between children and the significant people in their lives – whether they be family, friends or myself?

Could you please also provide me with the Ministry of Social Affairs definition of a “safe environment” that has been referred to in emails to me?

R and SM have been fostered to SHE – described on the SHE website as “a secure haven for trafficked girls or girls at risk of being trafficked who have been rescued from the sex industry”. However, neither R nor SM has been trafficked. Since taking the girls into your care you have added a disclaimer on your website which reads:

“Each child’s story is very individual and we work with girls that are at risk in prevention as well as girls that have been rescued from trafficking.”

However, the wording of this disclaimer is such that pretty well any poor boy or girl in Cambodia (numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions) could be taken in by Citipointe on the grounds that their poverty, their parents inability to feed them adequately, make them eligible for SHE care and hence eligible to be alienated from their families, their villages, their communities and their cultures by Citipointe’s declared objective of providing “a safe, God-centered place to live”.

As you will be aware, Australia has, over the past few years, undergone a good deal of soul searching in relation to “The Stolen Generation” – those Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by various government agencies and often placed in the care of well-meaning Christians. Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has, this year, made a formal apology on behalf of all Australians to “the Stolen Generation”.

On the basis of all the evidence at my disposal it appears to me that Citipointe, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, may be in the process of ‘stealing’ C’s children - in the sense that Aboriginal children were 'stolen'. If I am wrong in this assumption (and I certainly hope that I am) please explain to me where the logic that informs this email fails. If I am wrong then, amongst other things, I will be able to take C, V, R, SM and C’s new baby to the fun fair, roller skating, to the water park, to the markets to shop and eat – as I have done this past 14 years (in the case of C) and for the past three years – in the case of R and SM. I do not need or want my time spent with this little family to be monitored or supervised by Citipointe. If Citipointe has any reason to believe that I pose a threat to these girls please come straight out and say so and indicate on what grounds you believe R and S M need to be protected from me.

I do not acknowledge either Citipointe’s or Chab Dai’s moral right to interfere with my 14 year relationship with Chanti’s family and will not be signing any contract of the kind that you have sent me. If indeed it is true that Citipointe’s policy in relation to the fostering of R and SM has been forced on it by LICADHO this raises another whole host of questions.

Citipointe must, like all NGOs be accountable for its actions and transparent in its modus operandi. It would certainly seem, unless I have misinterpreted my communications with Citipointe and the information available on the Citipointe website, that Citipointe has taken complete and total control of the lives of R and SM with the intention of marginalizing the role of their mother and grandmother in their lives. This would be illegal in Australia. Further, given that R and SM have not been ‘rescued’ but have been recruited down by the river with promises made to their mother which turned out to be false, it appears that they are being used in a dishonest way to raise money for Citipointe’s SHE programme. I wonder how many of the children in your care are actually girls who have been trafficked and how many are simply the daughters of impoverished families who may well have signed a contract with Citipointe but who were unaware of the full ramifications of what they were doing?

I am looking forward to an email in which you inform me that I have leapt, much to quickly, to the wrong conclusions in this email and for answers to the questions I have raised here.

best wishes

James

...to be continued...