Monday, May 6, 2013

Questions for Chab Dai and LICADHO asked in 2008 that remain unanswered today


This correspondence between myself and Citipointe from close to five years ago speaks for itself:

23rd. October 2008

Dear Bec (Rebecca Brewer)

Now that SHE (Citipointe) does, it seems, have legal custody of Rosa and Srey Mal I imagine that there must be some protocols regarding taking them out for a day with Chanti and her baby. It is something of a tradition that I take Chanti and the kids to the water park, roller-skating and or to the fun fair during the Water Festival and would like to do so again this year.

cheers

James

24th. October 2008

Hello James,

Regarding taking Rosa and Cheata  out for a day with their mother, unfortunately we are unable to accommodate this request. Our policies require that the children in our care remain in the custody of our staff members at all times. I’m sure you understand the need for us to maintain strict guidelines and policies to ensure the safety of all of the children in our care.

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.

(NOTE: This is a complete contradiction of promises made by Citipointe to both Chanti and myself  and to what is to be found even today on the Citipointe website.)

Kind regards,

Bec Brewer

Project Supervisor

Citipointe International Care and Aid

Cambodia

Dear Rebecca

I have been associated with Chanti as a friend, and as someone she calls Papa, for 14 years now. I have known Rosa and Srey Mal since they were born. They too call me Papa. (Mind you, Chanti’s mother, Vanna, also calls me Papa!) I have spent a lot of time with this small family, have done all I can to help support them, have rented them apartments, bought them clothes and food, sent Rosa to school and established what I consider to be an ongoing relationship with the family.

The tenor of your email suggests to me that Citipointe now considers that it has the right to deny Rosa and Srey Mal access to a significant person in their young lives – namely myself; that Citipointe believes it has the right to terminate my relationship with these two girls.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted you here! I would certainly appreciate some clarification regarding what access I can now have to Rosa and Srey Mal and they to me? And what access does Chanti have?

best wishes, James

Dear Bec

It is now six days since I sent the email below to you - ample time for you to get back to me, if you had chosen to do so, and say, “James. You misunderstand! Of course we wish you to continue to have a relationship with Rosa and Srey Mal.”

By what right, by what authority, under  Cambodian law, under God’s law, does Citipointe take it upon itself to separate these girls from their family, friends and community? To deny me access to them? To deny Rosa and Srey Mal access to someone who has been significant to them in their short lives?

Citipointe has three times referred to LICADHO as one of the bodies that defines the “safe environment” into which Rosa and Srey Mal now live. (“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.” – to quote an 11th. August email) Could you please provide me with the LICADHO definition of  the “safe environment” you are acting in accordance with and how this is being implemented in practice by Citipointe? Does the LICADHO “definition” make any mention at all of severing contact between children and the significant people in their lives – whether they be family, friends or myself?

Could you please also provide me with the Ministry of Social Affairs definition of a “safe environment” that has been referred to in emails to me?

I ask again for Citipointe to explain to me, in terms of the LICADHO and Department of Social Security definitions, what access I may have to Rosa and Srey Mal and under what conditions? And I repeat my request that I be able, as I do every year, to take Chanti and her kids (and mother) to the fun fair, the water park or roller skating during the water festival in a couple of weeks time.

I have no desire whatsoever to interfere with the work that Citipointe is undoubtedly doing with the best of intentions to help kids such as Rosa and Srey Mal in need of help. However, Citipointe must, like all NGOs be accountable for its actions and transparent in its modus operandi. It would certainly seem, unless I have misinterpreted your email and drawn the wrong conclusions from Citipointe’s lack of response to my Oct 24th.email, that Citipointe has taken complete and total control of Rosa and Srey Mal.

I am looking forward to an email in which you inform me that I have leapt, much to quickly, to the wrong conclusions.

best wishes

James


Email from Pastor Brian Mulheran

Dear James,

Thank you for your patience concerning our response to you about Chanti and yourself having an access visit with Rosa and Srey Mal. I apologize for the initial denial of this request as it has always been the case that the girls are permitted to have supervised access visits with their mother.

Always our first priority, as you could imagine, is the safety of those in our care and we are required to ensure the protection of the girls both legally and morally under Cambodian Law, our agreement with Licadho and our relationship within the Chad Dai Coalition.

NOTE: For close to five years Citipointe has refused to provide evidence that it had any legal right in mid 2008, under Cambodian law,  to be holding Rosa and Chita contrary to the express wishes of their parents. Nor has Citipointe provided any evidence at all of the agreement the church had entered into with LICADHO. And LICADHO refuses to discuss the matter and has done for close to five years.

I have attached a copy of the Chab Dai Coalition - Child Protection Policy for Visitors for your information and also your commitment to uphold which I am sure you have no problem with at all.
My proposal for the visit is as follows:
2.      You are willing to sign and abide by the Chab Dai Coalition - Child Protection Policy
4.      The Access visit will require the accompanying of two of the SHE Rescue Home Team members
5.      Any costs incurred (for example access to a theme parks etc) for the accompanying of the two Team members on the visit will be met by yourself, and…
We trust that this will be satisfactory to yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Mulheran
Executive Pastor, Citipointe Church

This email resulted in three telephone conversations – two with Rebecca Brewer and one with Brian Mulheran. Both telephone conversations were recorded so that there could be no misunderstanding later on, as to what had been said. In my conversation with Rebecca she informed me that Chanti’s supervised visiting rights to her children had been reduced from two hours every two weeks to two hours per month. The reason given for this was that Chanti had ‘kidnapped’ her daughter and kept her for six days. When Citipointe finally gained possession of Rosa (aged six) again, LICADHO (Rebecca told me) insisted that Chanti’s visitation rights be reduced to once a month. At this point it is clear that Chanti is allowed only 24 hours per year to spend with her children.

NOTE: What right did LICADHO have to be dictating to Citipointe the number of hours per annum that Chanti would be able to spend visiting her daughters? Or is Pastor Mulheran lying? LICADHO refuses to answer this or any other questions.

Dear Brian and Rebecca

Citipointe’s relationship with LICADHO remains unclear to me however and I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me just what role LICADHO plays in the formulation of Citipointe’s policy in relation to caring for Rosa and Srey Mal and other girls that Citipointe is ‘fostering’.

I use the word ‘fostering’ very deliberately. Rosa and Srey Mal are not orphans. Their mother and grandmother live just a few streets away from Citipointe’s SHE residences. Nor are either Rosa or Srey Mal victims of people trafficking or child prostitution. And nor have Rosa and Srey Mal been rescued from a dangerous domestic environment. Rosa’s and Srey Mal’s problems, along with those of their mother Chanti and grandmother Vanna, can be attributed, for the most part, to poverty.  The same applies, of course, to large numbers of kids living in poverty in Phnom Penh and elsewhere in Cambodia.

Citipointe has adopted a role in the lives of these girls which is not dissimilar to the role played by foster-parents worldwide and it has done so, it seems to me, for one very good reason – to give Rosa and Srey Mal opportunities in life, through education and proper nourishment, that all too many kids in Cambodia are denied. It is the lack of these opportunities and the poverty that accompanies this lack that leaves poor children in Cambodia vulnerable to exploitation.

 Having adopted the role of foster parents (or ‘foster carers’ if you’d prefer) it is, I believe, important for Citipointe to bear in mind the legislation relating to fostering as it pertains to Queensland – the state in Australia in which Citipointe church is based.

I would like to draw your attention to some pertinent sections of this legislation:

• In deciding in whose care the child should be placed, the Chief Executive
must give proper consideration to placing the child, as a first option, with
kin.

• If a child is removed from the child’s family, it is the aim of authorised
officers working with the child and the child’s family to safely return the child
to the family if possible. (Child Protection Act Part 2, 5 (2f i))

The child’s need to maintain family and social contacts and their ethnic
and cultural identity must be taken into account and respected by all
parties to this Statement of Commitment. (Child Protection Act Part 2,
5 (2f ii))
• In exercising the powers under the Child Protection Act the Chief Executive
will ensure that:
(i) actions taken, while in the best interests of the child, maintain family
relationships and are supportive of individual rights and ethnic,
religious and cultural identity or values
(ii) the views of the child and the child’s family are considered
(iii) the child and the child’s parents have the opportunity to take part in
making decisions affecting their lives.
(Child Protection Act Part 2, 5 (2d))

Does Citipointe recognize, as it would be legally obliged to in Queensland, that Rosa and Srey Mal have a right to maintain family relationships? If so, why were Rosa’s and Srey Mal’s mother and grandmother allowed only 2 hours of supervised visit with the girls every two weeks at the outset and only one supervised visit per month now?  

Is Citipointe supportive of the “ethnic, religious and cultural identity or values” of Rosa and Srey Mal? If not, why not? If Citpointe is  supportive of the “ethnic, religious and cultural identity or values” of Rosa and Srey in what way is this support manifested? The Water Festival is a significant Cambodian event. It is a time when families converge on Phnom Penh to celebrate, engage in festivities and forge the sense of community which is so fundamental to Cambodian culture. It is a time when Chanti and her children should be together - unless, that is, there is strong evidence that their being together would pose a threat to the well being of Rosa and Srey Mal. I have known these girls since they were born and have never, not once, seen evidence of neglect by Chanti or Vanna - other, that is, than the kind of 'neglect' that all street kids in Phnom Penh suffer from.

It seems to me, from having visited your website and absorbed its contents, that as far as religion is concerned Citipointe intends to transform Rosa and Srey Mal, brought up as Buddhists in a Buddhist culture, into Christians in the Citipointe mold. If I am correct in this assumption (and please correct me if I am wrong) what moral right does Citipointe have to forcibly convert these two young girls to another religion – especially since such a course of action would be against the law in Australia?  

Leaving aside questions of legality, the forcible conversion of Rosa and Srey Mal reveals a contempt for Buddhism as a religion and a declaration of the superiority of Christianity.

When I met with Leigh Ramsay, Rebecca Brewer and Helen Shields in June this year I was told that Chanti would have free and regular access to her children whilst in Citipointe’s care. I was told that one day a week they would be able to visit their mother at her home. After my meeting with Leigh, Rebecca and Helen, Chanti asked me whether I thought it was a good idea for Rosa and Srey Mal to be (to use the appropriate western terminology) fostered by Citipointe. I did not at the time share my reservations with Chanti about Citipointe’s religious agenda. I figured that all things considered indoctrination into Citipointe’s particular brand of Christianity was a small price to be paid if the girls were to be well fed, receive a decent education and be protected from the various perils that lie in wait for millions of extremely poor Cambodia children – especially those living in cities where the danger of sexual and other forms of exploitation are very high.

Not until some time later did I learn that Citipointe had changed the nature of its relationship with Chanti by getting her to sign a contract which, amongst other things, allows her only two hours of supervised access with her children every two weeks and, more recently, only once a month. When I asked Brian in Brisbane why this change had taken place he insisted that Citipointe is 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 to two hours every month. This, of course, is no answer at all. It merely shifts the question of causation from Citipointe to Chab Dai and LICADHO. What right do either of these NGOs have to be enforcing or encouraging a fostering relationship between Citipointe and Rosa and Srey Mal which would be illegal in Australia? A fostering relationship that carries the very real risk of alienating Rosa and Srey Mal from their mother and grandmother and perhaps also the culture they were born into?

In relation to LICADHO if there is any possibility that I have drawn the wrong conclusion from emails sent to me by Helen Shields and from words spoken to me by both Brian and Rebecca on the phone in relation to LICADHO, please clarify for me just what role, if any, LICADHO plays in the formulation of Citipointe fostering policy as manifested in its running of the SHE programme. If indeed LICADHO has induced Chanti to sign a contract with it, a few questions arise. Given that Chanti neither reads nor writes Khmer, was there an interpreter with her when she signed the document? Did she fully understand what she was signing? Did she willingly agree to the draconian conditions placed on her by the contract in terms of visitation rights? Given Chianti’s poverty, her powerlessness and her desire to give her kids opportunities in life that she has never had, did she feel that she had any right at all to question the document placed before her and requiring her thumb print?

In relation to Chab Dai the document you sent to me makes this consortium of Christian NGOs’ policy quite clear. However, what right does Chab Dai have (either legally or morally) to dictate the terms under which children can relate to their families, friends and communities? Given that Chab Dai has money and the families of children in NGO care, by definition, do not, these families are clearly not in a position to negotiate or even ask questions or raise doubts. I am, however. I have a long term relationship with Rosa and Srey Mal and do not recognize Chab Dai's right to dictate on what terms I can continue my relationship with these girls - unless, that is, Chab Dai can demonstrate that I am, in some way, a danger to them.

 Could you please provide me with the LICADHO definition of  the “safe environment” you are acting in accordance with and how this is being implemented in practice by Citipointe? Does the LICADHO “definition” make any mention at all of severing contact between children and the significant people in their lives – whether they be family, friends or myself?

Could you please also provide me with the Ministry of Social Affairs definition of a “safe environment” that has been referred to in emails to me?

Rosa and Srey Mal have been fostered to SHE – described on the SHE website as “a secure haven for trafficked girls or girls at risk of being trafficked who have been rescued from the sex industry”. However, neither Rosa nor Srey Mal has been trafficked. Since taking the girls into your care you have added a disclaimer on your website which reads:

“Each child’s story is very individual and we work with girls that are at risk in prevention as well as girls that have been rescued from trafficking.”

However, the wording of this disclaimer is such that pretty well any poor boy or girl in Cambodia (numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions) could be taken in by Citipointe on the grounds that their poverty, their parents inability to feed them adequately, make them eligible for SHE care and hence eligible to be alienated from their families, their villages, their communities and their cultures by Citipointe’s declared objective of providing “a safe, God-centered place to live”.

As you will be aware, Australia has, over the past few years, undergone a good deal of soul searching in relation to “The Stolen Generation” – those Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by various government agencies and often placed in the care of well-meaning Christians. Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has, this year, made a formal apology on behalf of all Australians to “the Stolen Generation”.

On the basis of all the evidence at my disposal it appears to me that Citipointe, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, may be in the process of ‘stealing’ Chanti’s children - in the sense that Aboriginal children were 'stolen'. If I am wrong in this assumption (and I certainly hope that I am) please explain to me where the logic that informs this email fails. If I am wrong then, amongst other things, I will be able to take Chanti, Vanna, Rosa, Srey Mal and Chanti’s new baby to the fun fair, roller skating, to the water park, to the markets to shop and eat – as I have done this past 14 years (in the case of Chanti) and for the past three years – in the case of Rosa and Srey Mal. I do not need or want my time spent with this little family to be monitored or supervised by Citipointe. If Citipointe has any reason to believe that I pose a threat to these girls please come straight out and say so and indicate on what grounds you believe Rosa and Srey Mal need to be protected from me.

I do not acknowledge either Citipointe’s or Chab Dai’s moral right to interfere with my 14 year relationship with Chanti’s family and will not be signing any contract of the kind that you have sent me. If indeed it is true that Citipointe’s policy in relation to the fostering of Rosa and Srey Mal has been forced on it by LICADHO this raises another whole host of questions.

Citipointe must, like all NGOs be accountable for its actions and transparent in its modus operandi. It would certainly seem, unless I have misinterpreted my communications with Citipointe and the information available on the Citipointe website, that Citipointe has taken complete and total control of the lives of Rosa and Srey Mal with the intention of marginalizing the role of their mother and grandmother in their lives. This would be illegal in Australia. Further, given that Rosa and Srey Mal have not been ‘rescued’ but have been recruited down by the river with promises made to their mother which turned out to be false, it appears that they are being used in a dishonest way to raise money for Citipointe’s SHE programme. I wonder how many of the children in your care are actually girls who have been trafficked and how many are simply the daughters of impoverished families who may well have signed a contract with Citipointe but who were unaware of the full ramifications of what they were doing?

NOTE: In Nov 2008 not one of the girls at the She Rescue Home was a victim of human trafficking. All were the daughters of poor families recruited as were Rosa and Chita – in a process filmed by myself as Citipointe handed out food parcels.

I am looking forward to an email in which you inform me that I have leapt, much to quickly, to the wrong conclusions in this email and for answers to the questions I have raised here.

best wishes

James

NOTE: I have never received answers to any of the questions I have put to Citipointe, to Chab Dai or to LICADHO.

No comments:

Post a Comment