Dear Ms Breen
Thank you very much for your email of 17th May. And
thank you also to the Australian Federal Police for looking into this matter.
It is, in essence, a simple one:
“Was Citipointe acting in accordance with Australian law when,
in mid-2008, the church removed Rosa (aged six) and Chita (aged five) from
their Cambodian parents – Chanti and Chhork and retained custody of them
despite the express wishes of the parents that the girls be returned to the
care of their family. If Citipointe’s actions were in accordance with Australian
law, the church should be able to produce documents demonstrating the legality
of its actions.”
The document that Citipointe used in 2008b and 2009 to justify
it’s removal is a ‘contract’ that the church induced Chanti and her mother,
Vanna, to sign on 31st July 2008. Rosa and Chita’s father was not
asked to sign this document. This 2008 ‘contract’ was not counter-signed by any
member of Citipointe church or the She Rescue Home (a non government
organization run by the church) and is not a legal document that gives
Citipointe any legal rights at all to retain custody of Rosa and Chita against
the express wishes of their parents.
Despite the fact that this 31st July 2008 ‘contract’
has no legal status, Citipointe used it for the following 15 months as evidence
that Chanti and Chhork had willingly given up their daughters to be cared by
the church until they were 18 years old and to justify its decision to limit
Chanti’s access to her daughters firstly to 2 hours per two weeks and then to
two hours per month – a total of 24 hours per annum. These visits could only
occur, Citipointe claimed, again referring to the ‘contract’, under the
supervision of church staff. In fact, this ‘contract’, even if it were legal, contains
none of the terms and conditions Citipointe told Chanti (or myself) that it
contained.
During the last four months of 2008 and for the bulk of 2009,
Chanti and Chhork repeatedly asked Citipointe to return their daughters to
their care. The church staunchly refused to do so – despite the fact that the
31st July 2008 ‘contract’ clearly did not give the church a legal
right to hold the girls against the clearly expressed wishes of their parents.
In late 2009 Citipointe would eventually declare that its right to retain
custody of Rosa and Chita for the previous 15 months emanated from an agreement
that the church had entered into with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
when the She Rescue Home was accredited as a non government organization.
At the risk of belaboring the point, the question from which all
other questions arise, is this:
In August 2008, at a time when Citipointe was claiming the right
to retain custody of Rosa and Chita until they were 18 years old, did the
church have a legal right, in terms of the church’s alleged contract or
agreement with Cambodia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have a legal right to
ignore the wishes of the parents that the girls be returned to their care?
If, by 11th August 2008, Citipointe had entered into
a contract with the Cambodian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs that gave it the right to retain custody of Rosa and Chita, the
church broke no laws in July and August 2008. However, Citipointe has refused
for close to five years now to provide Chanti and Chhork (or myself as their
advocate) with a copy of the contract or agreement that the church maintains it
had entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Consequently, it is
impossible to know if the church was acting within its legal rights or not – in
terms of either Cambodian or Australian law.
In a recent interview with the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and
Juvenile Protection Department’ in Phnom Penh I discovered that Citipointe has
not provided the investigating police with a copy of this alleged
contract/agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is strongly
suggestive that the contract/agreement did not give the church the legal right
to act as it did in mid to late 2008. On the other hand, it could also be that
Citipointe does have a contract/agreement with the Cambodian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and has chosen not to provide it to the investigating police in
the ‘Anti
Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’. I have requested of these police that they ask to Citipointe
to provide them with copies of all documents relating to the legality of the
church’s actions in 2008 and 2009.
I would like to suggest, if I may, that the first task to be
performed by the AFP should be to ask Citipointe to provide documentation that
reveals the church’s right, in mid-2008, to retain custody of Rosa and Chita
contrary to the express wishes of their parents. If Citipointe can do so an AFP
investigation need go no further. If the church cannot provide proof of the
legality of its actions then a whole host of questions arise that Citipointe
needs to answer.
It may be, when the AFP speaks with Citipointe, that the church
refers to Rosa and Chita (also known, in 2008, as Srey Mal) as ‘victims of
Human Trafficking’. As the July 31st 2008 ‘contract’ makes clear,
Citipointe did not consider the girls to be ‘victims of Human Trafficking’ at
that time. The church, in drawing up this ‘contract’ (Chanti can neither read
nor write) made it quite clear that Chanti’s motivation in asking for help in
July 2008, and the church’s motivation in helping her, emanated from the family’s poverty. There is
no mention at all in this ‘contract’ of Rosa and Chita being ‘victims of Human
Trafficking’.
I was filming in Phnom Penh at the time that Citipointe first
approached Chanti in 2008. In the relevant sequence of CHANTI’S WORLD
Citipointe’s modus operandi is clear: Conduct a prayer service down by the
river for poor families and their children, hand out food parcels and then tell
the poor parents that the church will help look after their daughters –
providing them with food, a roof over their heads, education, access to medical
help and so on. (The attached photos, taken from a computer screen) represent
the movie footage I shot at the time. I will make this and other film sequences
available to the AFP if these would assist in your investigation.)
If Citipointe had adhered to the verbal promises it made to
Chanti (and to myself) in mid-2008 the church would have to be commended for
its actions. However, Citipointe did not adhere to any of the promises it made
to Cyhanti and myself and, instead, induced Chanti to sign a sham ‘contract’ on
31st July 2008 and then use this to effectively kidnap Chanti and
Chhork’s daughters.
These are, I am aware, serious allegations to make about an
Australian church. If I am incorrect in my assertions Citipointe can easily
demonstrate this by producing copies of the contract and/or agreement the
church entered into in 2008 with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
If I can be of any further assistance to your investigation
please do not hesitate to request it.
best wishes
James Ricketson
