Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD
4152
29th
July 2012
Dear Leigh
Further to my letters of 22nd,
24th, 26th, 27th and 28th July.
I have, this morning, paid
C’s rent up until 1st. Nov., by which time I will be back in
Cambodia. This afternoon I will buy two 50 kilo bags of rice for the family (in
addition to the 50 kilo bag I bought a few days ago) to meet the family’s rice
needs for the next couple of months. I have also obtained from C a document
giving me permission to act as an advocate on her behalf and to ask of
Citipointe the kinds of questions that you yesterday declined to answer on the
grounds of client confidentiality. I have made a copy of the document for you
and can give it to you at any time today if you let me know where I can meet
you or to where I can have it couriered.
C insists that she has no
contractual arrangement with Citipointe regarding R and SM other than the one
she placed her thumb print on four years ago. As you know, this document,
unsigned by any representative of Citipointe, is not a legal document. All it
comprises is a request, from C, that Citipointe (through ‘She’) take care of
her children. The ‘contract’ contains no terms or conditions, making no
mention at all of visitation rights. Even if the document did have legal
standing it has been superseded by the document prepared two days ago and
signed in the presence of C’s Village Chief in which C requests that R and SM
be returned to her care. You have a copy of this document.
Citipointe may well argue
that is not the church’s decision to either return or not return R and SM to
their mother’s care; that this is a decision to be made by the Ministry of
Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation. I quote from my film
proposal:
- For 15 months Citipointe
relied on its unsigned ‘contract’, devoid of terms and conditions, to justify
holding R and SM against their mother C’s wishes. Citipopinte church then
entered into a contract with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth
Rehabilitation. Neither Citipointe nor the Ministry of Social Affairs
will provide either C or the filmmaker with a copy of this contract but the
Ministry makes the following comments in writing:
1)
For the SHE Rescue project, bring the children under the control and protection
before signing the agreement was possible because the organization was already
registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
already.
2)
For the SHE resuce project, according to the agreement made with the Ministry
of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation, the organization has
projected to help victims of human trafficking and sex trade as well as
families which fall so deep in poverty. After questioning directly, the
ministry believes that R must have been in any of the above categories.
Given that R and SM are not
victims of human trafficking or the sex trade they must, as far as the Ministry
is concerned, fall into the category of, “families which fall so deep in
poverty.”
Could Citipointe please
provide both C and myself with a copy of the agreement it has entered into with
the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation so that she
and I may be acquainted with what she needs to do to convince the Ministry that
she has fallen out of poverty and is now in a position to support R and SM?
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment