Letter to Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs re Citipointe church - in receipt of DFAT approved tax-deductible funding from the Global Development Group.

 Given that Citipointe has no intention of either returning Rosa and Chita to their family or of providing evidence of the legality of the church’s actions, I am not trying to find out how much the Global Development Group knows (or does not know) about the ‘SHE Rescue Home’s’ modus operandi in Cambodia and whether or not Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs is, at least, prepared to ask a few questions of the church.

The Hon Julie Bishop

Minister for Foreign Affairs

PO Box 6022


House of Representatives


Parliament House


Canberra ACT 2600                                                                          

10^th Feb 2014

I am writing in relation to an Australian NGO that receives funding through a DFAT approved NGO by the name of the Global Development Group.  

The NGO in question is the ‘SHE Rescue Home’, run by a Brisbane-based church by the name of Citipointe.

It is my allegation that Citipointe church is in breach of Cambodian and Australian law in having illegally removed the daughters of an impoverished Cambodian family in 2008. I allege also that, five and a half years later, Citipointe church continues to detain these two girls – named Rosa and Chita – against the express wishes of their parents – Chanti and Chhork.

For five years Chanti and Chhork have been asking that their daughters be returned to the family. For five years I, as both a friend of the family and as their legally appointed advocate, have also been asking the church to return the girls to their family. Citipointe refuses to do so. Citipointe refuses to provide Chanti and Chhork with any documented evidence that the church has a legal right to detain the girls.

It is not enough for DFAT to respond to my allegations, as it has in the past, with, “This is a matter for the appropriate authorities in Cambodia to deal with.” As you will be well aware, Cambodia is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. There is no rule of law and any NGO who so wishes can pay the relevant person in the relevant government department to act pretty much as they please.

Recently, in conjunction with Cambodia’s pre-eminent human rights NGO, LICADHO, I attempted, through the courts to acquire from Citipointe copies of the legal documents the church claims to have that give it the right to hold Rosa and Chita against their parents’ wishes. This attempt was unsuccessful – the court apparently not believing that the church is under any obligation to provide evidence of the legality of Citipointe’s actions to the parents or anyone else.

Such a response from a Cambodian court is unsurprising! I trust that you would not be satisfied with a refusal on the part of an Australian NGO to provide evidence of the legality of its actions in removing the children of impoverished parents from their families – especially when this NGO is, through tax-deductions, the recipient of Australian tax-payer funds.

I have no reason to believe that the Global Development Group  is aware of the human rights abuses being perpetrated by Citipointe church. Indeed, I believe that Citipointe has deceived the Global Development Group and told the NGO what it wants to hear.  It is to be hoped, once the GDG has done a little research (which should involve talking to the parents of the girls removed by the church) that it will cease funding the church’s ‘SHE rescue Home’.

Citipointe is not alone amongst Australian NGOs in offering to ‘help’ the impoverished parents of children in Cambodia and then denying the parents access to them and exploiting them for the purposes of raising money for the NGO through donors and sponsors. The fact that it is widely acknowledged that 75% of the orphans in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ are not orphans bears witness to the dimension of the problem here

My question for you, Minister, is this:

“In the event that an Australian NGO, in receipt of funding from a DFAT approved NGO, (in this instance the Global Development Group) removes children from an impoverished family, are the parents of the children entitled to be provided with documents (agreements, contracts) that demonstrate that the NGO has acted in accordance with Cambodian law?”

If you believe that it is not unreasonable for the parents of children removed from their families to be provided with (a) a reason why they have been removed and (b) evidence of the legality of the NGO’s actions, please ask Citipointe church to provide yourself with copies of the relevant agreements or contracts the church has entered into with the relevant Cambodian government department demonstrative of the legality of its action.

Given that, through DFAT, money is being given to NGOs who are not obliged to be transparent and accountable by any Cambodian government body, DFAT could, at the very least, demand that NGO recipients of DFAT-approved monies (tax-deductible) enter into legally binding contracts with the parents of the children they care for. This requirement would make it just that more difficult for NGOs such as Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ to breach the human rights of parents like Chanti and Chhork by effectively kidnapping their children.

best wishes

James Ricketson

cc The Global Development Group