Sunday, March 31, 2013

Citipointe's removal of Rosa and Chita front he care of their family close to five years ago lawful or unlawful?


Pastor Brian Mulheran
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Road
Carindale
QLD 4152

1st April 2013

Dear Brian

Clearly, Citipointe has no intention of letting facts stand in the way of the church’s desire to hang onto Rosa and Chita at all costs. That Chhork drives a tuk tuk and makes $35 a week is of no relevance. That Rosa and Chita wish to be reunited with their family is of no relevance. That Chanti and Chhork now own a home in the village of Chhok’s family in Prey Veng is of no consequence.

Citipointe can get away with what amounts to stealing Chanti;s children because there is no body, no organization, in Cambodia that is going to prevent the church from abrogating the most basic of Chanti and Chhork’s human rights – which is that she be allowed to bring up her own children unless there is compelling evidence that her daughters would be at risk living with their family. If there is compelling evidence, this should have been presented to Chanti and Chhork in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 or now, in April 2013. If there is a presumption on the part of Citipointe of MOSAVY that Rosa and Chita are ‘at risk’, should Chanti and Chhork not be appraised of precisely what risk they are at? Should they not be provided with any and all documents/agreements Citipointe has entered into with the ministries of Foreign and Social Affairs so that they can contest, if need be, some of the facts that have led to Citipointe/MOSAVY making a determination regarding whether or not Rosa and Chita are better off growing up in an institution or with their family?

A recap of some old correspondence might help shed some light on the facts for those who are following this blog.

On 9th July 2010, you wrote to me:

“We are also bound to abide by the Unicef protection of Child Victims of Trafficking.

Article 2.6 (and Article 6.3) (Right to Confidentiality) protects not only the identity, the name and the address of the protected children (child victims) but also of "all other information"  that could lead to the identification of the child victim or his or her family members.”

This presupposes that Rosa and Chita were ever victims of Human Trafficking. As you know, they were not. The 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ Citipointe induced Chanti and her mother Vanna to sign with their thumb prints is quite clear: Here were a poor mother and grandmother seeking assistance.

If Rosa and Chita were, in fact, ‘victims of Human Trafficking’ why would Citipointe have needed to enter into a ‘contract’ with Chanti at all? Why did Citipointe not deal directly with MOSAVY? Why is no mention made of Rosa and Chita being ‘victims’in the ‘contract? Why was there never any mention, in my conversations with Leigh and Rebecca in Phnom Penh in June 2008 of the girls being ‘victims of Human Trafficking’? Why, in Citipointe’s and my first months of communication regarding Rosa and Chita is there no mention at all at ‘Human Trafficking’?

You write in July 2010:

“According to the Inter-Ministerial Guideline on Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking:

Article 65: "in case anyone, who claimed to be victim of human trafficking, requests for staying in the center, then the Director of the center shall report in writing to the local police for legal action", and Article 63 states that "Accepting a victim to stay in the shelter must be in full consent of the victim or the parents, or the guardian of the victim and the center". These Articles have been fully complied with by Citipointe for all the children in our care.”

When Chanti and Vanna requested that Rosa and Chita stay  in ‘the center’ it was poverty that led them to do so, as you know and is clear from the 31st July 2008 ‘contract’. It was not because Chanti believed her daughters to be either victims of Human Trafficking or ‘at risk’ of becoming victims.

Insofar as the 31st. July 2008 ‘contract’ constitutes Chanti’s ‘consent’, it was consent on Chanti’s part based on her poverty and had nothing to do with Human Trafficking. She did not give you consent to remove her daughters on the basis of their being victims or potential victims of Human Trafficking.

Did the Director of the centre, in June 2008, report in writing “to the local police for legal action?” If so, is not Chanti entitled to have a copy of whatever documents passed between Citipointe and the police in June 2008 regarding the status of her daughters as ‘victims’? Did Citipointe, in June 2008, notify Chanti’s village Commune Chief in writing of its intention to take care of Rosa and Chita? Did Citipointe have any communication at all with Chant’s commune chief? If so, is Chanti entitled to be provided with copies of any such documents relating to the Commune Chief’s agreement to allow Citipointe to take care of Rosa and Chita?

You write:

“SHE Rescue Home is operated by Citipointe for the benefit of child victims. Please note that child victims are not always defined within the category of sexual trafficking.”

You have subsequently referred to both Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of Human Trafficking’ on several occasions. If Rosa and Chita are not victims of sexual trafficking, in what way, in June 2008, were they victims of Human Trafficking? I spent every day with Chanti and her family in the two weeks prior to Rosa going to stay with Citipointe and  there is nothing in anything I filmed (or in anything I witnessed when not filming) to suggest that they were either victims of Human Trafficking or at risk of becoming so. Could you please clarify what Rosa and Chita were victims of in June 2008 – other, of course, than of poverty?

You write in July 2010:

“While Citipointe International Care and Aid (SHE Rescue Home) operates according to the principles of the Christian faith, each child within our care retains their right to freedom of religion…”

This is not true. Rosa and Chita have been denied the right, for close to five years now, to take part in any religious or cultural events with their family. They have been denied the right, as recently as Feb 2013,  to attend the weddings of their aunts in the village in Prey Vent in which Chhork’s family lives. That Rosa and Chita have been indoctrinated into the Christian faith and alienated from their own culture and religion is well documented.

You write in July 2010:

“(Citipointe’s) intent is first and foremost is to work with the child and the family toward the earliest possible time for reintegration and to provide follow-up support subsequent to reintegration.”

In close to five years Citipointe has done absolutely nothing to work towards re-intergration – despite many requests from Chanti and myself that a reinteration plan be put in writing so all involved know where they stand Citipointe has refused all such requests from Chanti and myself. Please, Brian, provide one document that relates to the re-integration of Rosa and Chita with their family this past close to five years?

You write in July 2010:

“We give substantial support not only to the children in our care but also their families in order to foster the process whereby reintegration may take place at a faster rate than if the families were unsupported.”

This is not true. In close to five years Citipointe has provided no support at all to Chanti and her family – not when her children were suffering from malnutrition and had no choice but to eat the corpse of a dog found at the side of the road and not when Chanti had a tumour on her wrist that needed to be removed. Citipointe has provided no assistance at all to see that Chanti’s other children can receive an education. Citipointe has done nothing at all. Citipointe did not even offer to help Chanti when, 8 months pregnant in Feb this year, she needed to be hospitalized with pneumonia if her unborn baby was not to be placed at risk as a result of her fever. That so-called Christians could treat Chanti and her soon-to-be-born baby is this way beggars belief.

If you wish to challenge my assertion that Citipointe has done nothing to help Chanti since August 2008, please provide some evidence of what Citipointe claims to have done – bearing in mind, of course, Rebecca’s statement of 24th October 2008:

“Regarding continued support to Chanti, we are unable to assist with distributing this sort of aid. Our focus is to assist the children in our care as needed and the work we do with the parents is limited. If we were to be seen giving handouts to one individual parent it could prove very disruptive to the rest of the community.”

Citipointe’s hypocrisy is astounding – claiming to assist families when it suits Citipointe’s money-raising agenda and claiming not to assist parents on the grounds that “it could prove disruptive to the rest of the community.” The community that Rebecca is referring to, of course is the community of poor people down by the river the parents whom Citipointe courted with boxes of food (all this filmed) and empty promises.

You are very quick, Brian, to quote pieces of Cambodian legislation that bolster your case that your actions in relation to the forced removal of Rosa and Chita from their family back in June, July and August 2008 were legal. The one piece of legislation you never quite is the following:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation

Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal

The act of unlawful removal in this act shall mean to:
1)      Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power or enticement, or
2)      Without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.

Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor

A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.


The italics are mine and are a neat summary of the way in which Chanti and Chhork’s daughters, Rosa and Chita, were removed from their care in July, July and August 2008.

best wishes

How did Chanti's plea for short term help segue into Citipointe's decision to label Rosa and Chita as 'victims of Human Trafficking'?


Leigh Ramsay
322 Wecker Road
Carindale
QLD 4152

31st March 2013

Dear Leigh

You and Pastor Brian Mulheran continue to insist, when asked, that Rosa and Chita, the two eldest daughters of Chanti and Chhork, are ‘victims of Human Trafficking.” You know this is not the case.

Below, yet again, is a pretty good translation of the ‘contract’ that Citipointe got Chanti and her mother to sign with their thumb prints on 31st July 2008. There are many observations that can be made about this ‘contract’ (most notably that it carries no legal weight at all) but what I am interested in here is how Citipointe managed to segue from this ‘contract’ (a plea for help) to the church’s 2013 assertion, repeated ad nauseum, that Rosa and Chita are ‘victims of Human Trafficking’?

KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King

name: YEM CHANTHY, age 21, and name: CHAB VANNA, age 52, job: morning glory seller, address: along the riverfront street, Central market.

TO

Director of CT Point International Rescue and Care Organization

Objective: request for my child or grandchild, name: CHANTHY ROZA, sex: female, age: 6 and name: CHANTHY CHEATA, sex: female, age:3 to stay in the center of CT Point International Rescue and Care Organization.

As mentioned in the objective, we, both are mother and grandmother of the above two children, would like to inform the Director that: nowadays, we have no house, living along the street and have no job and cannot provide enough food for feeding the two children. Moreover, we would like the two children to have safe shelter and get enough food, as well as education.

As mentioned, please the Director permits our two children to live in the care center by favor.

Please the Director receives the great respect from us.

Phnom Penh, Date: July 31, 2008

Mother's thumbprint            Grandmother's thumbprint

You will not, of course, either respond to this letter or provide an answer to my question. And neither do Chab Dai, LICADHO or any other organization in Cambodia seem to think it important that Citipointe provide an explanation (backed by legal documents) as to how a plea for short term help segued into the total removal of Rosa and Chita from their family on the grounds that they were/are ‘victims of Human Trafficking.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Chab Dai and LICADHO turn a blind eye to Citipointe church's human rights abuses of Chanti, Chhork and their daughters Rosa and Chita



Dear Naly and Helen


You have both ignored my letter to you of 13th March:

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.in/2013/03/for-naly-pilorge-licadho-and-helen.html

You have also chosen to ignore my “13 Questions for Chab Dai and LICADHO” published on 17th March:


“For Naly Pilorge and Helen Sworn regarding Australia's Prime Minister's apology to parent and child victims of forced adoption last century”


I should not be surprised, I suppose, since both of you have ignored all correspondence from me this past close to five years relating to the illegal removal of Rosa and Chita from their family in August 2008. This does not reflect well on the commitment of either Chab Dai or LICADHO to the basic precepts of transparency and accountability. Worse still, your silence regarding Chanti and Chhork’s legal and human rights amounts to the tacit approval of both Chab Dai and LICADHO to the forced removal of girls from the care of their family without the parents being told why the removal has taken place, without the parents being provided with copies of agreements that Citipointe church has entered into with Cambodia’s Ministries of Foreign and Social Affairs, without the parents being provided with any reintegration plan for close to five years, without the family being offered any financial assistance at all to life it out of poverty, without Chantix being offered any counseling at all regarding contraception, and without even medical assistance when, 8 months pregnant, Chanti’s baby was at risk as a result of her pneumonia that required her hospitalization. Chab Dai and Citipointe have turned a blind eye to Citipointe church’s abrogation of Chanti and Chhork’s human rights and to those of their daughters – both of whom have made it clear that they wish to be living with their family and not in an institution in which (they claim) they do not receive sufficient food, in which water is locked up at night so that they cannot drink and in which their hair is perpetually infested with lice – this last being something I can verify. On each and every occasion this past close to five years that I have been filming when Rosa and Chita visit, Chanti’s first task has been to de-louse the girls.

Citipointe’s behavior in relation to Rosa, Chita and their parents is quite simply unacceptable and the She Rescue Home should, I believe, be closed down. Some justification for the church’s actions could, I suppose, be put forward if Rosa and Chita were in fact the victims of Human Trafficking. However, as has been known to Chab Dai, the LICADHO and to MOSAVY for close to five years now, Rosa and Chita are not victims of Human Trafficking. They are merely the daughters of a poor family whose mother and grandmother were tricked into applying their thumb prints to a document that they believed had been presented to them by LICADHO. How can LICADHO countenance this form of deception in its own name without peaking out? Or was LICADHO a willing party to the drawing up of this phony contract – a contract which, in not being countersigned or witnessed and containing no terms and conditions, is not a legal document. The illegality of the document has been known for four years now and yet, again, Chab Dai and LICADHO have chosen to turn a blind eye to this fact.

On the basis of my experience with Citipointe it seems that pretty much any and everyone can open up an NGO and do what they like with neither Chab Dai or LICADHO raising any objections at all in public. An extraordinary state of affairs!

Naly, Helen, Chanti and Chhork’s hearts have been broken so many times now. Please do whatever you can to stop this form occurring. Please ask Citipointe church to provide Chanti (and myself as her legally appointed advocate) with copies of any and all agreements that Citipointe has entered into with the Ministries of Foreign and Social Affairs that gave the church the legal right, in August 2008, to retain custody of Rosa and Chita against the wishes of their parents. Rebecca Brewer made it clear in her email of 11th August 2008 that Citipointe believed it had the legal right to hold Rosa and Chita until they were 18. I do not believe that on that date or at any time for the following year that Citipointe had any legal right to hold the girls. Whether I am right or wrong can only be determined if Citipointe produces the documents that demonstrate the legality of the church’s actions.

best wishes

James Ricketson