Response to Pastor Mulheran's 21st Feb letter # 4

The birth of Chanti’s daughter has preoccupied me somewhat this past 24 hours and made the writing of this response to Pastor Mulheran’s 21^st Feb letter seem to me a waste of time. Chanti’s new daughter, whose English name is Poppy, will get the same support from Citipointe that her brothers James and Kevin and sister Srey Ka have received: None. NONE. Warning to the parents of poor children: If a Christian NGO gives you some free food by the river and offers to help you care for your kids, take the food and run as fast as you can! This is undoubtedly unfair to Christian NGOs that DO help entire families and who do not see it as their mission in life to convert the daughters of Buddhists into Christians with bribes of food and false promises.

We are, hopefully, moving into the home stretch in dealing with Pastor Mulheran’s letter. Pastor Mulheran writes…

Please read through this letter very carefully and understand the following points - these are the facts whether you wish to believe them or not:

The girls are legally in the custody of the Cambodian government and we hold them in care on their behalf;

The Government deems both girls as child victims of Human Trafficking according to the law.

Excuse me for belabouring the point but you know, everyone at Citipointe church knows and the Ministry of Social Affairs knows that Rosa and Chita are not victims of Human Trafficking. You can repeat this till you are blue in the face but this will not make it true. Reality doesn’t work that way!

The government is the one that determines when reintegration will occur.

For the government to determine when integration will occur would require that someone from the government do a little homework and write a report for the Minister to consider. I presume that this would be a small team of MOSAVY Social Workers. I presme that these Social Workers would talk to Chanti and her family; that they would talk to Chanti’s landlady (whom the family rents her home from); that the Social Workers would speak to Chanti’s neighbours and others in her community; that these Social Workers would speak with Chanti’s Commune Chief; that the Social Workers would like to see documentary evidence that Chanti and Chhork do actually own a home in Srey Veng; that the Social Workers travel to Srey Veng and speak with the families of Chanti and of Chhork to determine how supportive they will be of the family when it moves back to Srey Veng. When the Social Workers have completed their investigation they will, presumably, write a report for the Minister. A copy of this report will be provided to Chanti and she will be given an opportunity to either correct errors or to make comments in response to what the Social Workers have written. I imagine also that I, as Chanti’s advocate and as her sponsor, will be required to make a submission also. I imagine that Citipointe will write a report of its own and that this will also be shown to Chanti and myself.

To this end I have written a letter to the Minister for Social Affairs and will, in the next 24 hours, have it translated and delivered to the Minister’s office. The Minister has never responded to any letter from me to date but perhaps this time will be an exception. I live in hope!

For the record, no one in Chanti’s community has any recollection of any Social Worker from the Ministry visiting Chanti and her family.

By revealing the girl’s identities, stories, location of the home and, our staff and organization in association with them on the internet and also what you have communicated to us concerning the content of your documentary film, you are breaking the Cambodia Exploitation Laws;

Yet again, Brian, these laws apply to the victims of Human Trafficking and Rosa and Chita are not victims of Human Trafficking. Nor are 84% of the other girls in the She Rescue Home. Why don’t you advertise the She Rescue Home for what it is and not in such a way as to enhance your fund-raising potential?

Your statements about us ‘kidnapping’ or  having ‘stolen’ the children are defamatory and vexdatious;

Sue me!

Your intent concerning the documentary film of the girls and seeking to reveal their identities and your continued support of the family is hindering the reintegration.

Since my documentary has not been completed and has been seen by non-one, how is it hindering reintegration? Ohm, and while we are on this point, what has Citipointe done in close to five years to even initiate the process of reintegration?

(g) Your email 12 February 2013 contains a blackmail threat against our organization.

Sue me!

(i)            Cambodian Laws and Guidelines

I am not going to type up the laws you quite in full. Life is too short. These are available to anyone who wishes to consult the internet.  I will pick up my transcription of your letter close to the bottom of page 6 where you write:

Both the girls are deemed by Cambodian law to be victims of Human Trafficking. Irrespective of your opinion or the opinion of others, Cambodian law and the Cambodian Government deem the girls to be victims of Human Trafficking.

I can do no better than quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Neither your opinion nor mine is of any relevance here. Rosa and Chita are not and never were victims of Human Trafficking.

The definition of Human Trafficking includes begging and a child who is the progeny of a trafficked relationship.

Rosa and Chita have never been beggars and nor are either of them the progeny of a trafficked relationship. You are clutching at straws here, Brian.

(ii) Our heart and duty of care for the girls, and our relationship with the Kingdon of Cambodia Government.

We have no desire to keep any of the girls within our care any longer than is deemed necessary by the Cambodian government. The Cambodian government, through the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSAVY) are the legal guardians of all the girls in our care. The government through their agreement with us, grant us authority to care for the children on their behalf, but the children are children of the state.

We are back now to a critical point in this story and it is worth going through it step by step:

- Chanti, Chhork and her children (Rosa, Chita and Srey Mal) were living in a small room just a few streets back from the river when they first encountered Citipointe church. I have filmic proof of this.

- Citipointe church staff conducted an impromptu church service at the river’s edge, after which food parcels were handed out to the children and their parents – all members of the riverside community I knew well and had been filming with for many years. I filmed this impromptu service and the handing out of food parcels down by the river. (Please note that I will not be revealing the identity of the Citipointe staff involved.)

- The following day I met with Leigh Ramsay and Rebecca Brewer and we discussed the possibility that Citipointe might help care for Chanti’s two eldest daughters.

- The following night Leigh Ramsay, Rebecca Brewer and I had dinner together and discussed it further. No mention was made of the girls staying with Citipointe until they were 18. What was proposed was a short term solution to Chanti’s financial  problems - an arrangement that she could terminate whenever she wished.

- The following day Chanti asked me if I thought the offer being made by the church was a good one. I told her that I thought it was – based on what Leigh and Rebecca had told me.

- The following day Rosa and Chita left their mother’s and father’s home to stay at the She Rescue Home. Neither Chanti nor myself had any reason to believe that the church would not keep its word.

- I returned to Australia.

- On 31^st July 2008  Chanti and her mother put their thumb prints on a document that they neither understood nor had explained to them. The document, clearly drawn up by someone else, included the fact that they had no home – which was not true. As I have mentioned, I filmed inside this home two days before Rosa and Chita went to stay with Citipointe. As with pretty much everything that has occurred this past close to five years I have a comprehensive filmic record of what has transpired.

- On 11^th August 2008  Rebecca informed me in an email that Rosa and Chita would stay with Citipointe until they were 18.

- In November 2008 Chanti was told in a telephone conversation (filmed)  that Rosa and Chita would be returned to hers and Chhork’s care at the end of the water festival. The church reneged on this agreement.

- I was informed by more than one source that in Nov 2008 there was not one girl in the She Rescue Home who was a victim of Human Trafficking; that all of the girls had one or more parents who had, like Chanti and Vanna, signed contracts that they could neither read nor understand.

- Between 31^st, July and 11^th August 2008 the only document that either Chanti or myself are aware of that relates to Rosa and Chita being in the care of the She Rescue Home is the 31^st. July document that has not been countersigned by Citipointe and that contains no terms or conditions at all. Cambodian and Australian lawyers have informed me that this  is not a valid legal contract.

- Citipointe subsequently claims that it was justified in holding Rosa and Chita against their parents wishes in Nov 2008 on the basis of an agreement the church had entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If this contract exists it is one that Citipointe entered into without the knowledge of Chanti, without any consultation with her and without Citipointe consulting Chanti’s Commune Chief. What legal right did Citipointe have to enter into such an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the custody of her daughters when all Chanti and Chhork had sought at the outset was temporary help whilst they were in the midst of a financial crisis? How did Foreign Affairs get involved anyway?

I have asked these questions countless times. Citipointe has refused to answer them countless times. Transparency and accountability are not Citipointe’s strongest points.

- Fifteen months later Citipointe entered into a secret agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs – an agreement that replaced the one that Citipointe claims it had entered into with the ministry of Foreign Affairs. Chanti’s repeated requests that she be provided with a copy of this agreement between Citipointe and MOSAVY and my own multiple requests, in my role as Chanti’s advocate, have been ignored by both Citipointe church and the Ministry of Social Affairs.

It may be, at this juncture, now that Chanti and her family have a home of their own and an income, that the Ministry of Social Affairs will get around to sending some Social Workers around to look at the facts of this matter.

I have spent close to five years trying to work with the church to help Chanti’s whole family. I have failed. Citipointe has no desire and certainly no intention of helping the whole family. The church has made this clear with its actions.

I have also spent the past four years trying to avoid placing this matter in the hands of the Australian Federal Police. I am merely a filmmaker and not a professional investigator. I can also be ignored by Citipointe, whereas the Federal Police cannot.

On the basis of the facts that I have at my disposal (and which I will give to the Federal Police on my return to Australia) I believe that a strong case can be made that Citipointe acquired custody and control of Rosa and Chita in 2008 in contravention of both Cambodian and Australian law. If Citipointe did enter into a legally binding contract with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the church has nothing to fear from an investigation – though questions still remain as to the reason why this contract was entered into and why neither Chanti nor her Commune Chief had any knowledge of it.

…to be continued…