(3) CHANTI LOSES HER DAUGHTERS: How Citipointe presents itself to donors and sponsors + the truth about what is in the 31st July contract

(21) Citipointe Cambodia staff conduct prayer meeting during free lunch giveaway...

(22)....prior to Chanti discovering...

(23)....how Citipointe represents itself to...

(24)...sponsors and donors in 2008.

(25) The She Rescue Home is purportedly for girls who have been sex slaves, been trafficked or engaged in child prostitution. Rosa (aged 6) and Chita (aged 5) do not fit into any of these categories - as is apparent from the sham 'contract' Citipointe fort Chanti to sign.

(26) Presenting Rosa and Chita as 'victims of Human Trafficking' is a great way to raise money from sponsors and donors, however.

(27) Citipointe is offering a 'God-centred place to live' for girls who have been trafficked or who have been in danger of being trafficked. Rosa and Chita were never in danger of bering trafficked but such details are not important to Citipointe! The church refers to the She Rescue Home as a 'safe and loving location.' Christians in the Citipointe mould love the children of poor parents more than the poor parents themselves love their own children, it seems!

(28) When Citipointe's 31st July 2008 contract is translated it is discovered that it contains none of the terms and conditions...

(29)... that Citipointe had told Chanti and James Ricketson it contained and which the church has used as justification for limiting Chanti's access to her own daughters to 24 hours per annum - these visits to be supervised by church staff.

(30) Cambodian and Australian lawyers confirm that the 31st July 2008 'contract', containing no terms and conditions and unsigned by any member of Citipointe, has no legal standing.

Chanti and James Ricketson (whom she appointed as her advocate) have repeatedly asked Citipointe to produce the agreement the church maintains it entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that gave the church a legal right, in August 2008, to hold Rosa and Chita against the wishes of their parents. Citipointe refuses to produce any such documentation. Neither Chab Dai nor LICADHO believe that Citipointe is under any obligation to demonstrate to Chanti and Chhork that the church's holding of Rosa and Chita was in accordance with Cambodian law.

...to be continued...