In a meeting with her in
Phnom Penh on 28th July Leigh Ramsay stated, repeatedly, that it was
Citipointe church’s intention to re-integrate R and SM back into C’s family and
community. I pointed out to her many times that in the past four years
Citipointe has done nothing whatsoever to facilitate such re-integration; that
now was not the time for motherhood statements but for action. C needed to know
how and in accordance with what time-frame a re-integration programme was to be
implemented. Leigh did not answer this question but kept re-iterating that it
was Citipointe church’s desire to see R and SM re-integrated into their family.
Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD
4152
28th
July 2012
Dear Leigh
It was good to meet today
and talk about the re-integration of R and SM back into C’s family. Whilst
there are some things we disagree on, there is more than enough that we agree
on to put a plan into action to facilitate this re-integration along the lines
I have mentioned already in my letter of 24th July or in some
alternative manner that Citipointe might like to suggest. As for my own
position, it has not changed in the past two years. If Citipointe believes that
I need to have a formal document from C and Chhork, signed by the Village
Chief, for me to act as an advocate on their behalf I will acquire such a
document.
My letter to Pastor
Halloran of 27th Sept 2010 includes the following:
Hopefully now…we can get
down to the business of finding a way out of the dilemma that the church and C
are confronted by: Citipointe wishes to retain complete and total control of
C’s children until they are 18 years old and C wants her daughters back living
with her.
The rigidity of
Citipointe’s position is both distressing to C and causes her to adopt her own
rigid position. There is, of course, a middle way – the one that Citipointe
presented to both C and myself over two years ago: that C be given regular
access to her children and, of course, that R and SM have regular access to
their mother, grandmother, friends and community. Is Citipointe prepared to
abide by the terms of its original agreement with C? If not, why not?
Several times this past two
years C has expressed her wish to me that she be able to go and visit her
family in the Provinces. And she has invited me to come with her – a not
unreasonable proposition given than I have known C most of her life and have
known her children all of their lives. C informs me that Citipointe has refused
this request of hers to be able to take R and SM with her to visit their
family. If C is speaking truthfully, why has Citipointe refused her
request? What legal or moral argument can the church present for alienating
C and her children from their family in the Provinces? I am here requesting
permission to accompany C, her children (including R and SM), mother and
husband to visit her family.
I did not receive any
response to this letter and it is absurd that we are, two years later, not just
back to where we started from 4 years ago, but further behind since C’s access
to her daughters is even more limited. You said, in our meeting today, that the
reason why R and SM could not stay with their family for weekend visits was that
the place where they live has been deemed to be unsafe because there is
gambling, drinking and, when social workers from the Ministry visited,
fighting. Whilst I have seen gambling across the way from C’s home, I have
never witnessed any fighting.
You have now visited C’s
home and met some of her neighbours and know a little of her neighbourhood, her
community, first hand. Her home is not a hovel, or a slum (which is how best to
describe where C was living in Sept. last year when she had regular access to R
and SM) but nor is she living in the lap of luxury. She has electricity, a fan,
a TV and is living under circumstances that apply to the bulk of Cambodian
families living in Phnom Penh. Her husband, Chhork earns a modest income
driving a tuk-tuk that he rents for $5 a day and both C and her mother, V, earn
small amounts of money selling books, silk scarves and woven bracelets to
tourists. Chhor is a model father who is very protective of his children and V
too is a model grandmother, though she does suffer from occasional bouts of
mental illness and does like, every now and then, to get drunk on cheap rice
wine. When she does this, and it is relatively rare, she drives everyone around
her crazy. Nonetheless, having known V for 16 years I cannot fault her for the
way in which she takes care of her grandchildren. The same applies for C.
If social workers came to a
different conclusion when they visited C’s home they must, I imagine, have
written some kind of report to justify their decision not to allow R and SM to
stay with their family on weekends. If you would let me know who the relevant
person is at the Ministry to speak with to obtain a copy of this report, I will
make contact with them once I have C’s written permission to act as an advocate
on her behalf. I will certainly be curious to know how much time they spent
with C and her family in order to arrive at the conclusion they did. I am also
curious to know in accordance with what Cambodian law it is necessary for C and
Chhork to be paying their own rent and earning their own income, unaided by
myself, before the Ministry will allow R and SM to go home. This strikes
me as a very odd law indeed. Why should Citipointe be allowed, by law, to
support R and SM financially and me not be allowed to do so?
The ideal scenario from my
point of view is to arrive at an agreement before I leave Phnom Penh and for it
to be in writing and signed by all stakeholders. Now is not the time for
motherhood statement about how we all care for C’s future and wish for R and SM
to be re-integrated back into the family. Now is the time for there to be a
concrete plan, in writing.
As you heard from C and her
mother, they want R and SM back living with them full time. I think it fair to
say that neither Citipointe nor myself think that this is the best way to
approach the re-integration of R and SM back into the family. This needs to be
done gradually and in accordance with a plan. I have suggested one. If
Citipointe has an alternative suggestion, now would be a good time to
articulate what it is.
My letter to Pastor
Halloran of close to 2 years ago also included the following:
Citipointe may now realize
that the church cannot prevent me from completing my film and see the
advantages (if only from a public relations point of view) in acknowledging C
and her children’s right to maintain regular contact with each other. This
story (insofar as Citipointe is concerned) can have a happy ending but the ball
is well and truly in Citipointe’s court.
Nothing
has changed with the passage of time. The ball is still well and truly in
Citipointe’s court.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
It is worth noting that C, her husband mother and others in
the community have no recollection of any social worker coming to visit C in
her home or to check out the community in which she is living.
No comments:
Post a Comment