Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD
4152
30th
July 2012
Dear Leigh
Further to my letters of 22nd,
24th, 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th
July.
You have not responded to
any of the six letters I have sent you this past week , all of which
constituted my attempt to find some way out of the impasse we find ourselves in
vis a vis R and SM and C’s desire that her daughters be returned to her care.
Your lack of response suggests that you do not wish to work with me to find a
solution to the problem of how best to re-integrate R and SM into their family
in a way that has the best interests of the girls at heart. It is not enough,
Leigh, to keep saying, “We all have the best interests of R and SM at heart.”
Such motherhood statements, in the absence of an agreed upon plan, are
meaningless. Indeed, given that this sentiment has never been followed up with
a concrete plan of action this past four years, it is a statement that makes C
angry enough to ask me to find another NGO that will help take care of her
daughters whilst allowing them to visit her in her home every weekend.
It is a pity that it was
not possible to meet last night, as planned, to give you the document signed by
C that gives me permission to act as an advocate on her behalf. When I get back
to Australia I will post it to you, through the post, the document C has drawn
up giving me permission. In the meantime C, CH (husband) and I will attempt to
find out from the Ministry for Social Affairs precisely what she needs to do to
get her daughters returned to her care.
As matters stand at present
C has no contract at all with Citipointe church regarding the custody and care
of her daughters. The ‘contract’ C put her thumb print on 4 years ago worthless
from a legal point of view and she tells me that there has been no other signed
agreement with Citipointe since then. Nor does C have any contractual
relationship with the Ministry of Social Affairs as I understand it. The only
contractual arrangement relating to the custody of R and SM is one between Citipointe
and the Ministry of Social Affairs. This is a contract or agreement that I have
asked Citipointe many times to provide to C and myself. I have also asked the
Ministry for Social Affairs. Neither Citipointe nor the Mininstry feel that it
is important that C knows and understands the conditions under which her
daughters may be re-integrated back into the family. Over the years C has been
promised that such re-integration would occur but it has not, not even
when she has reached whatever the benchmark was that she was given – regular
job, income and a home to live in. I have been privy to two such occasions when
promises made by Citipointe to C have not been kept.
Leaving aside the role that
the Ministry plays in the welfare of R and SM, the role that Citipointe has
played this past four years is clear: the church has retained custody of R and
SM contrary to the oft expressed wishes of their mother, C, that her children
be returned to her care. This fact has both legal and moral dimensions to it. I
will not concern myself with the legal aspects right now but morally what
Citipointe is doing with R and SM is a variation of a social experiment tried
and proved to be a failure in Australia. As you know, Aboriginal children were
removed from the custody and care of their parents for reasons not dissimilar
to those that have impelled Citipointe to do likewise with R and SM and the
children of other poor Cambodian families. The result, in Australia, were
sufficiently disastrous for the government to make a formal apology to both the
children and the parents of the ‘stolen generation’. The loss of her daughters
to Citipointe causes C great distress every day. I have seen her in tears
often. Indeed it is difficult for her to talk about R and SM without crying. And
I know, from talking with R and SM, that they would prefer to be living with
their family than at Citipointe’s ‘She’ refuge.
C and I will go, this
morning, to the Ministry for Social affairs and attempt to find out, directly,
precisely what she needs to do to get her daughters back. C is quite emphatic
that she does not wish her daughters to reside with Citipointe any longer. As
you know, I have been trying (especially this past week) to find a solution
with Citipointe to make the girls’ re-integration back into the family a smooth
one that has the best interests of R and SM at heart. Your refusal to respond
in any way to my suggestions or to make any suggestions of your own speaks for
itself. Perhaps you are hoping that when I leave Phnom Penh you will be able to
cajole C with yet another promise that is not in writing and which carries no
legal weight. C may well be illiterate but she is not stupid. She not only
loves her children very much but is smart enough to have figured out that
Citipointe has every intention of doing what it claimed it had a right to do a
few years ago – namely retain custody of R and SM until they are 18. C intends
to fight Citipointe to have her daughters returned to her. It is a fight I will
support her in if necessary. At the risk of belabouring the point, the
appropriate course of action, in my view, is for there to be an agreed upon
plan of action that is written up and signed by all stakeholders so that there
can be no misunderstanding further down the track as to what has been agreed
to.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment