Citipointe's legal choices (1) Fight tooth and nail in court to retain custody of Rosa and Chita or (2) return the girls to their family as their parents, Chanti and Chhork, have been requesting for five years.

Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152                                                                                 

6th Dec. 2013

Dear Leigh

Now that the court papers have been served, Citipointe’s legal options now are basically these:

(1) Have your legal representative appear in court to try to convince the Judge that your church has, this past five and a half years, retained custody of Rosa and Chita in accordance with Cambodian law – despite the dozens of times their parents, Chanti and Chhork have asked for their daughters’ return to the family home.

In pursuit of this objective you have in your possession a second ‘contract’ that you got Chanti to sign in 2008. This is the ‘contract’ (let’s call in contract #2) whose existence I have been asking about for five years now and whose existence you have neither confirmed nor denied. Only a few days ago did LICADHO inform us of its existence. Chanti does not, of course, have a copy and has no idea what it contains.

It is this contract (not the worthless 31^st July 2008 contract) that the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ has presented to SISHA as evidence that Citipointe has the right to hold Rosa and Chita until they are 18 – as announced by Rebecca Brewer  in an email to me more than five years ago.

Before rushing to court with contract #2 you might want to run it by your Cambodian lawyers to see if it gives you any of the rights you have claimed this past five years – the right, primarily, to hold Rosa and Chita contrary to their parents express wishes. If the court decides that contract # 2 is as worthless as contract #1 (31^st July 2008) Citipointe has a problem. On what legal basis has the church  been detaining Rosa and Chita?

If Citipointe was acting illegally and if the court makes a determination based on the facts, you, Rebecca Brewer, Helen Shields and Nicole Robertt should, in accordance with Cambodian law, be found guilty of ‘illegal detention’ and serve time in jail. Even if you do not wind up in jail, it is hard to see how the Royal Government of Cambodia could allow to remain in the country an NGO that has been found guilty of ‘illegally detaining’ the children of a poor Cambodian family.

(2) Release Rosa and Chita back into the care of their family immediately.

There are plusses and minuses to both options. 

Option (1) looks promising on the surface. Citipointe can, after all, call upon the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ to backup the legality of the church’s actions as it has been doing this past few months – transmitting this information to me through SISHA. Superficially attractive though this might appear to be, it is a tactic that will only work if contract # 2 gave (and gives) Citipointe the right to hold Rosa and Chita indefinitely. When the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ checks this document with a lawyer (as it should have done months ago!) it will find that there is, in fact, no Cambodian law that enables Citipointe to detain Rosa and Chita regardless of what contract # 2 says; regardless of what Chanti thought she was signing with a thumb print.

If the investigating police with ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ try to use this document to justify the legality of Citipointe’s actions they will look very foolish in court.

Of course, this being Cambodia (recently voted the most corrupt country in Asia and one of the most corrupt in the world) anything is possible. Perhaps Citipointe could even make good Pastor Brian Mulheran’s threat to have me arrested, jailed and banned from coming to Cambodia again! How much would that cost?  No, you wont do that. That was an empty threat, just as your threats to sue me were empty and just as your legal threats against the Sydney Morning Herald were just the bluff and bluster of Christian bullies.

Chanti would, of course, prefer option (2). She desperately misses her daughters and wants them back immediately - as has been the case this past five years. Chhork also.

My main concern with option (2) if that Citipointe will find itself with two beds to fill and so be on the lookout for another family (perhaps two) that the church can hoodwink into giving a daughter up temporarily - only to find, too late, that the church intends to take full control of the girl’s life, to alienate her from her family and indoctrinate her into Citipointe’s warped version of the Christian faith. Two other girls will find themselves pawns in Citipointe’s sponsorship and donation scam as your church seeks to present them to the world as victims of something other than poverty; something other than the greed and avarice of your church. And who will act as an advocate for these two girls?

If I am wrong about Citipointe’s threats being but the bluff and bluster of bullies you have more than enough in this letter (and many others), published online, to commence defamation proceedings against me in either Cambodia or Australia or both. I would be delighted to be sued by Citipointe as this would force your church to be transparent and accountable for its actions in public and enable your sponsors and donors to learn how their money is spent in Cambodia to, amongst other things, steal children from poor families.

best wishes

James Ricketson