Dear Naly and Helen
Given that the facts surrounding what I allege to be Citipointe's illegal removal of Rosa and Chita from the care of their family in 2008 are of no interest to either of you or the organisations you represent, I have asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate; to get answers to the very questions that both Chab Dai and LICADHO could have asked close to five years ago. Whether the AFP will take any interest in this matter remains to be seen.
The removal of two children from
the care of their parents in Cambodia in 2008
FACTS
- In June 2008 a poor Cambodian
woman in her early 20s by the name of Yem Chanthy had a conversation with a
representative of Citipointe church, based in Brisbane, Pastor Leigh Ramsay. Pastor
Ramsay asked Yem Chanthy if she would like some help from the church to tide
her over family over whilst in the midst of a financial crisis – brought on, in
part, by the birth of her third daughter.
Yem Chanthy was, at the time,
living in a one bedroom apartment in
Phnom Penh with her husband Both Chhork, her two daughters – Rosa (aged 6),
Chita (aged 5) and her new baby Srey Ka. Both Chhork is step-father to Rosa and
the biological father of Chita (also known as Srey Mal). The family’s poverty was such that after the
birth of Srey Ka Yem Chanty was begging on the streets of Phnom Penh.
- In June 2008 Yem
Chanthy and Both Chhork spoke with James Ricketson about the offer that had
been made by Citipointe church. Yem Chanthy had known James Ricketson, a
filmmaker, since 1995, when he commenced making a documentary record of her
life. James Ricketson also spoke twice with representatives of Citipointe about
the church’s offer of assistance.
- On 31st
July 2008, Yem Chanthy and her mother, Chab Vanna, were asked by a
representative of Citipointe church to place their thumb prints on a document.
Yem Chanthy and Chab Vanna, both of them illiterate, were told that this
document would give the church permission to take care of Rosa and Chita until Yem
Chanthy and Both Chhork’s financial situation improved sufficiently such that
the the girls could be reunited with their family. Both Chhork was not asked to
sign this document.
- Please find attached a
colour photocopy of this 31st, July 2008 document and, on a separate
page, an English translation of it. Please note that it is not countersigned by
any member of Citipointe church.
- A witness to the
signing of this 31st July 2008 document identified herself as
working for LICADHO (a human rights organization) but did not provide a witness
signiature. (Since Nov 2008 LICADHO has refused to either confirm or deny that
a representative of LICADHO was present for the signing of this document. To
this day, Yem Chanty believes that the agreement she had entered into on 31st
July was with LICADHO. As a result of having lived most of her life on the
streets of Phnom Penh Yem Chanthy was familiar with the human rights work done
by LICADHO and trusted the person presented to her as a LICADHO employee.)
- On 11th August 2008 Rebecca
Brewer, a representative of Citipoine church wrote, in an email to James
Ricketson, that Rosa and Chita would reside at the She Rescue Home until they
were 18 years old. The precise words used by Rebecca Brewer were: (“Rosa and Chita stay with us until they are 18 or until she can
provide a safe environment for them, as defined by LICADHO and the Ministry of
Social Affairs.”
- Several written requests
made by James Ricketson to Citipointe, LICADHO and the Ministry of Social
Affairs to be provided with these ‘definitions’ were ignored. (Four and a half
years later it is still impossible to obtain from Citipointe, LICADHO or the
Ministry of Social Affairs a ‘definition’ of a ‘safe environment’.)
- Between August 2008 and November 2008 Yem Chanthy and her husband,
Both Chhork, requested on several
occasions that their daughters be returned to their family – their financial
fortunes having turned around with the acquisition of a food stall. Citipointe
refused to either return Rosa and Chita or to allow them to join the rest of
the family at the annual Water Festival – citing the 31st July 2008
document as evidence that Yem Chanthy had entered into a contractual agreement
that gave the church the right to remain as legal guardians of Rosa and Chita
until they were 18 years old.
- In November 2008
James Ricketson had the 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ translated from
Khmer into English. It was discovered that the document contained no reference to
Citipointe retaining custody of Rosa and Chita until they were 18 years old. It
was discovered also that the ‘contract’ did not contain any reference to the
visitation rights of Yem Chanty and Both Chhok to their daughters – despite
Citipointe church having claimed, in writing, that it did. In a telephone
conversation Pastor Brian Mulheran told James Ricketson that Citipointe church
was “obliged to abide by its membership with Chab Dai and its contractual
relationship with LICADHO to restrict Chanti’s and Vanna’s access to Rosa and
Srey Mal to two hours of supervised visit every two week and now, owing to the
recent incident, to two hours every
month.”
- The ‘recent
incident’ was Yem Chanthy ‘kidnapping’ Rosa from the She Rescue Home when she
and Both Chhork realized that Citipointe church had no intention of abiding by
the terms of the verbal agreement they (along with James Ricketson) had entered
into with the church. (There is abundant evidence in support of the proposition
that Yem Chanthy, Both Chhork and James Ricketson were mislead by Citipointe in
relation to the church’s offer to assist the family on a short term basis.)
- It was discovered
also that the 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ had not been signed by any
representative of Citipointe church. Cambodian
and Australian lawyers have expressed the opinion, in very forceful terms, that
the 31st July 2008 document did not constitute a legally binding
contract between Yem Chanthy and Citipointe giving the church any of the rights
it claimed to both Yem Chanthy and James Ricketson that it did – namely that
Rosa and Chita would remain in the legal custody of Citipointe until they were
18 years old, that Yem Chanthy’s visits to her daughters would be limited to 2
hours per month and that such visits would be supervised by a member of
Citipointe church.
Fifteen
months later the Ministry of Social Affairs provided the following explanation
as to why Citipointe had not entered into a contractual agreement with the
ministry until late 2009:
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 Rosa must have been in any of the above
categories.
The ‘must have been’ in italics (my own) suggests
that no-one from MOSAVY actually checked to see which category Rosa fell into
but took Citipointe’s word for it, since Citipointe has recently taken to
referring to Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of Human Trafficking’. (James Ricketson
was filming at the time that Rosa and Chita were recruited, along with the
daughters of other poor families, and can provide audio-visual evidence that Rosa
and Chita were not and never have been ‘victims of Human Trafficking.’)
- Between 31st
July 2008 and November 2008 (and for the following 15 months) Citipointe church
had, by its own admission, entered into no form of agreement with the Cambodian
Ministry of Social Affairs regarding the church’s continued custody of Rosa and
Chita. During this 15 months Citipointe repeatedly refused to return Yem
Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters to them.
- It is James
Ricketson’s allegation that the 31st. July 2008 document signed by
Yem Chanthy and Chab Vanna not constitute a legally binding contract giving
Citipointe church the right to retain custody of Rosa and Chita contrary to the
express wishes of their parents Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork. In the absence of
any other contract or agreement with the relevant Cambodian government
department (the Ministries of Foreign and Asocial Affairs) it is James
Ricketson’s allegation that during this fifteen month period, Citipointe was
guilty of breaching Cambodia’s “Law on
Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation” – the relevant part
of which reads:
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.
- James Ricketson has
attempted, on many occasions this past four and a half years, to get both
Citiopointe church and the Ministry of Social Affairs to provide Yem Chanthy
with copies of any and all contracts or agreements relating to Citipointe’s
continuing custody of Rosa and Chita. These contracts or agreements are important
for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate to Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork that
Citipointe that they either did or did not have a legal right, between 31st
July and November 2008 to retain custody of their daughters and (2) to discover
what they need to do in April 2013 to demonstrate to the Ministry of Social
Affairs what constitutes a ‘safe environment,’ such that their daughtyers can be returned to
them. (In April 2013, Both Chhork and Yem Chanthy own their own home in a
village in the province of Prey Veng and Both Chhork earns a regular income
driving a tuk tuk. Despite the obvious ‘safety’ of the ‘home environment’ and
ability of Both Chhork and Yem Chanthy to support their family, Citipointe
refuses to return Rosa and Chita to the care of their family.)
- James Ricketson’s
allegations regarding the legality of Citipointes actions in 2008 in removing
Rosa and Chita from their parents care are just that – allegations. The only
way that these allegations can be tested is for Citipointe church to provide
Yem Chanthy and myself (as her advocate) with copies of the contracts and
agreements that the church claims to have with the Ministries of Foreign and
Social Affairs. This the church refuses to do.
In order to resolve this matter
James Ricketson requests of the Australian Federal Police that it conduct an
investigation into whether or not Citipointe’s removal of Yem Chanthy and Both
Chhork’s daughters in 2008 was or was not a breach of section 270 and 271 of the Australian Criminal Code Act of 1995 .
Amongst the breaches of this 1995
Act that Citipointe may be guilty of is paying Chanti 25 cents, this past few
years, for the manufacturing of a product (wristbands) that the church sells
for $3 at times when hers and Chhork’s other children were suffering from
malnutrition as a result of their poverty.
There is ample audio-visual evidence of this, as there is for the bulk
of facts presented here.
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment