More on the legality or otherwise of Citipointe's mid 2008 actions in forcibly removing Rosa and Chita from the care of their family contrary to the express wises of their mother, Chanti, and father, Chhork

The ‘contract’ that Chanti and her mother signed with their thumb prints on  31^st. July 2008 is not a legal contact. Rebecca Brewer’s declaration, 11 days later, on 11^th August 2008, that Citipointe would hold Rosa and Chita until they were 18 does not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have any legal validity – unless, of course, between 31^st July and 11^th August, Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If this is the case, why has Chanti never been provided with a copy of this agreement? Why was she newver consulted in the preparation of it since it is clear from the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ that she was placing Rosa and Chita in care as a result of her poverty and for no other reason

For 15 months Citipointe had only this non legally-bidning ‘contract’ to justify holding Rosa and Chita. Then Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation. Chanti has never been supplied with a copy of this agreement either.

The Ministry made the following comment to me in writing, however:

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 suggests that no-one from MOSAVY actually checked to see which category Rosa fell into but took Citipointe’s word for it.

What MOSAVY seems to be implying here is that because Citipointe was registered as a refuge when it took Rosa and Chita into its care, Citipointe had a legal right to hold the girls despite their mother’s wishes that they be returned. Given that they were not victims of trafficking, Citipointe’s legal rights pertained to Rosa and Srey Mal’s ‘poverty’. And yet, at the time that Chanti was requesting vociferously that her children be returned to her (Nov 2008) she had both a home and an income. Today, Chant, Chhork and the family have a home and an income and yet Citipointe continues to insist that Rosa and Chita are ‘victims’. Victims of what? Who will ask this question of Citipointe and demand an answer? No0-one. Citipointe is a law unto itself and there is no mechanism in Cambodia whereby the NGO can be held accountable for its actions. LICADHO will not ask Citipointe to produce the documents that reveal the church’s legal right to have removed Rosa and Chita from the care of their parents in mid 2008. And nor will Chab Dai. An extraordinary state of affairs!