Would an Australian NGO, working in Australia, be allowed to take control of the lives of the daughters of a struggling family as Citipointe has in Cambodia?

Penny Richards

Ambassador, Cambodia

No 16B National Assembly St

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

28th Feb 2013

Dear Ambassador Richards

Further to my letters of 20^th, 22^nd and 26^th Feb. 2013.

Citipointe continues to refuse to either release Rosa and Chita to the care of their family or to provide evidence of their legal right to have held the girls for close to five years now. Citipointe has, for the past four years, refused to provide any documentary proof of the rights it claims to have.

Lets say, for argument’s sake, that the secret agreement that Citipointe entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prior to 11^th August 2008 does exist and transpose this scenario to an Australian legal context:

An Australian family, in severe financial difficulties, approaches a charity whose job it is to help families during such crises – the Australian Salvation Army, for instance. The Salvation Army offers to take the financial pressure off the family by offering to care for the two eldest daughters until the family gets back on its feet.  Within a few weeks the Salvation Army enters into a secret agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take care of the girls until they are 18 years old. The mother is told neither that the Salvation Army has entered into negotiations with Foreign Affairs, nor of the existence of the agreement that is drawn up and signed by both parties. She has had no say in the matter. Fifteen months later the custody of her two daughters is transferred to the Ministry of Social Affairs (or its Australian equivalent). Again, the mother knows nothing of this. She has not been consulted but, when she finds out that it has occurred and questions the legality of the arrangement between the Salvation Army and the Ministry  of Foreign Affairs and asks to see a copy of the agreement her request is refused. Likewise with her request to see a copy of the agreement between the Salvation Army and the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Salvation Army refuses her request.

I need go no further with this imagined scenario. The Salvation Army would not behave in this way. The Sallies would help the entire family. The question here, however, is not whether or not an NGO such as the Salvation Army  has the best interests of the family at heart. It is a question of law. The woman’s daughters could not be taken from her in this way and held for close to five yours without a whole raft of laws being brought into play – laws  designed to protect the children (from forced conversion to another religion being one) and to protect the mother’s rights to bring up her own children.

If the forced removal of two children from a family cannot occur in Australia without the mother even being aware of the legal basis upon which the removal has occurred, why should an Australian church be allowed to behave in this way in Cambodia? This is both a legal and a moral question but it is the moral aspect I am primarily interested in here.

I am sure that it is within your rights, as Australian Ambassador to Cambodia, to respectfully request that Citipointe provide you with copies of all the relevant documents the church claims to have giving it the right to have held Rosa and Chita this past five years contrary to the express wishes of their parents. You could request also that the mother, Chanti, be provided with a copy of these documents – as she has been requesting this past four years.

Citipointe may, of course, refuse to provide you or Chanti with copies of these legal agreements. However, in not doing so a whole host of questions would be raised – one of which is: Does the Australian Embassy have any right to expect of Australian NGOs that they behave not merely in accordance with Cambodian laws  but with laws that would apply in Australia under similar circumstances? Has Citipointe broken either Cambodian or Australian law by the manner in which the church effectively took control of the lives of Chanti’s daughters? The answer is to be found in the contracts Citipointe entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs.

In the event that Citipointe does refuse to provide you, as Australian Ambassador, with copies of these agreements, could you please ask the Minister of Social Affairs (MOSAVY)to provide you with them. You could explain to him that you wish to be assured that Citipointe came to become the Primary Carers of Rosa and Chita in a way that was in sync with Australian law.

For close to five years Chanti has suffered enormously as a result of being separated from her daughters and they have suffered as a result of being kept away from their family as a matter of policy – the reasons given by Citipointe  (never by MOSAVY) changing from month to month. The latest reason seems to be that Citipointe does not believe that the house the family now owns in Prey Veng is big enough for the family. That the church has not seen the house or even a photo of it is no obstacle to Citipointe’s objections. As it happens, I will, this next week or so, be paying to have the house renovated to make it bigger – at which point Citipointe may turn around and say, “But the house has no flush toilets!” or some such objection.

I have enclosed a colour photocopy of the legal document that certifies that Chanti and her husband Chhork are now the owners of a home in Prey Veng.

I will be remaining in Cambodia until this matter is resolved one way or another and would appreciate it if you could give it your urgent attention. You have both my email address and Cambodian phone number and would be available to discuss this with the relevant person within the Embassy. Chanti would also be available to talk with whoever this person might be. Chanti’s English is rudimentary but I imagine that you have experienced interpreters working at the Embassy.

best wishes

James Ricketson