An email from Leigh Ramsay
dated 31st. July
James,
It is now Tuesday 31 July
2012 and we are now back in the office and have found once again a barrage of
emails from you.
We would ask you that you
would exercise patience in the midst of your personal frustrations so we can
move forward amicably.
Recapping our discussions
that we had with you on the Riverfront in Phnom Penh on Saturday 28 July 2012,
our stand has not changed in that we are committed to the girls and we desire
to safely reintegrate them home under MoSAVY’s direction and instruction.
As you said, R’s father and
another gentleman offered C a sum of $10,000 for R and from this you have
determined C is very protective of her daughter and resists this offer. We
appreciate that C’s decision to do this means a lot to you.
You also stated you don’t
believe full time reintegration is currently the best idea for the family. Your
reasoning for this included the current family situation of lack of money and
employment and the family have no ability to pay for the schooling of their
children. We understand your frustration and concern as you had mentioned how
the family are so poor - that you found them eating dog and that the other
children often have red hair from a lack of nutritious food. For all of these
reasons we are working diligently to ultimately have this family together in a
safe environment with available food and education for all the children.
Another request you had for
us was to put together a formulated and documented plan for this family and
that the girls need to have unsupervised visits and sleep overs regularly. It’s
disappointing you moved forward with your plan of paying three months rent in a
community that has been deemed by MoSAVY as unsafe for unsupervised family
visits as we had explained to you on Saturday 28 July 2012.
As we had also explained,
we are submitted to, and will continue to be governed by MoSAVY’s lead and
decisions going forward with this family.
You have requested a
contract be drawn up between Citipointe and the family and a part of this would
be for C to no longer threaten to kidnap the girls.
We acknowledge receipt of
all correspondence sent over this last two weeks of which our communication
will continue between MoSAVY, social workers, the family and our Khmer staff.
In order to further
understand your frustrations and to assess with MoSAVY the way forward for
integration we ask if you could clarify for us what you said to us during our
meeting as outlined in the points above. (ie C showing her desire to be
protective of R and refusing R’s father and another gentlemen’s offer of
$10,000 for R; you don’t believe “full time” integration is currently the best
idea for the family; also your desire to use money from your documentary to
help support the family).
Best Regards
Leigh Ramsey
My response toLeigh,
written the same day
Dear Leigh
To take your
points one at a time.
Re patience: This has been going on for four years. C's
patience has run out. She has been made so many promises by Citipointe that
have not been kept. As my first half dozen letters to you make clear, I
have tried very hard to find a way of working with Citipointe to
formulate a
plan for the re-integration of C's children into the family. You have had four
years to present C with such a plan and you have failed to do so. Citipointe's
lack of action in this respect speaks for itself.
I fail to see the relevance
of C's decision, made 9 years ago, not to accept $10,000 from R's father if she
would allow R to accompany her father and leave Cambodia.
It is impossible for
either myself or C to have any idea what role the Ministry of Social Affairs
plays in the decision to allow or not allow R and SM to return to their family
since neither the Ministry nor Citipointe has provided her with any
documentation at
all in relation to what is expected of her if R and SM are to
be returned to her care. I have asked Citipointe for this information many
times and you have simply refused to provide it to either C or myself.
As for
C's family being very poor, so too are tens of thousands of Cambodian families.
I am currently paying rent on the home that C and her family live in, have
bought rice for the family and will be providing the family with a monthly
income that exceeds that
earnt by most Cambodians. As you know, because I have
told you already, this will be $100 a month. In addition to this sum, C and CH
will be able to earn money from their tuk tuk and from C's selling of goods to
tourists. The combined income from these two
sources will exceed that of most
families in Phnom Penh.
In relation to your belief
that the community in which C's family is now living is unsafe, could you
please provide some documentary evidence of this. You spoke with both CH and C
and both told you that the community was a safe one. You saw it for yourself.
Did
you see any evidence that it was unsafe. Could you please provide me with
whatever report was prepared by the Ministry of Social Affairs in relation to
this community. It is, as you have seen, a fairly typical lower-middle class
Phnom Penh community.
In relation to your final paragraph I am not sure what
it is you want from me that I have not already addressed in my many letters. I
am merely an advocate for C and in that role I have sought, as my letters
attest, a way of arriving (in conjunction with Citipointe) at
a program for
re-integration. Citipoint has come up with nothing but motherhood statements.
In the meantime, C has no trust in Citipointe any longer. Every promise made to
her by Citipointe has been broken. C has no contractual arrangement with
Citipointe and
does not have any idea what the terms are of Citipointe's
contractual arrangements are with the Ministry of Social Affairs. And nor do
you have any intention of providing her with this information – revealing the
contempt you have for C's rights as a mother.
I have attached an English
language copy of a letter that I have, this afternoon, dropped off at the
Ministry of Social Affairs.
C, who is just outside the internet cafe where I
am writing, has reiterated her desire for you to return her daughters to her
today. If you do not intend to do so could you please explain what gives you
the right to ignore C's request? If your refusal to return R and
SM is because
this would breach conditions laid out by the Ministry of Social Affairs, please
indicate what those terms are. I have been asking this for four years.
I am
copying this to the Director or the Ministry of Social Affairs, Mr Oum
Sophannara. If you could please supply Mr Oum Sophannara with a phone number I
believe that he wishes to speak with you.
best wishes
No comments:
Post a Comment