# 76 letter from Ms Sam Mostyn, President, ACFID

I have finally received a response of sorts from Ms Sam Mostyn.

It is clear from her letter that Ms Mostyn does not believe that Chanti and Chhork have any right to be provided with copies of 2008 and 2009 MOUs by Citipointe or the Global Development Group regarding the legality of the church’s removal and detention of the girls.

As Ms Mostyn knows full well, I have never lodged a formal complaint with ACFID and so am not bound by the ACFID ‘code of confidentiality’

I am currently in Cambodia trying to help Chanti and Chhork, Rosa and Chita adjust to the new set of circumstances resulting from Citipointe simply dumping the girls back with their family with no warning, no reintegration process and with nut a bag of rice and two second hand bicycles.

Ms Mostyn’s letter, apparently written by Marc Purcell or Chris Adams, is full of inaccuracies and evasions – which I will address in a subsequent blog.

Dear Mr. Ricketson,

I am writing on behalf of ACFID’s Executive Committee in response to your email of 12 June 2014 and your open letter published on your blog. 

I also refer you to previous correspondence from ACFID’s Executive Director, Mr. Marc Purcell (who is authorised to act on behalf of the Executive Committee including myself); specifically correspondence dated 7 March 2014, 8 March 2014, 11 March 2014 and 2 April 2014.

Both the ACFID Executive and the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee (CCC) take the matters that you have raised in your correspondence with ACFID since February this year very seriously.

A key purpose of ACFID is to equip and encourage members to observe the highest ethical standards in all their activities, including strict observance of the ACFID Code of Conduct. The Code itself only applies to signatory organisations. These are the organisations that publicly commit to upholding the principles and obligations outlined in the Code and they can be held accountable to these.

However, many signatory organisations work with and through partners to deliver their program. The ACFID Code requires signatory organisations to use all reasonable efforts to ensure that partners deliver the Code signatory’s program in a manner consistent with the Code of Conduct.

As you are aware, the CCC (the independent body charged with overseeing the Code that is responsible for Code complaints handling) initiated investigations into complaints against two organisations that you lodged with ACFID’s Executive Director on 8 March. The CCC will only consider complaints relating to breaches of the ACFID Code of Conduct by Code signatory organisations and only where the Code Complaints handling process is the most appropriate way to handle the matter (See E.3 ACFID Code of Conduct Complaints Handling, on our website www.acfid.asn.au)

The complaints handling processes are not court processes or a tribunal. The rules of evidence do not apply. However our members take their commitment to the Code seriously and the complaints handling process forms part of the binding obligations of the Code (Section E.3.1). Members are required to comply with requests from the CCC for information within reasonable time limits (Section E.3.1.2) and they have been cooperative in providing detailed information in these particular cases.

The CCC is constituted independently of the ACFID Council and Executive and its investigations and deliberations are conducted separately and confidentially. However, the CCC is permitted under its Terms of Reference and the Code of Conduct Implementation Guidance (Section E.3.1) to provide additional information and involve other levels of governance within ACFID (guided by the Precautionary Principle).

Due to the public manner with which you have conducted your communication regarding these issues, the CCC has advised me of the outcome of the complaint investigations referred to above and the CCC’s own inquiry referred to below.

I understand that you chose not to cooperate with the CCC’s investigation into those complaints and that you were not a party to the CCC’s own inquiry (outlined below). Nevertheless, I am choosing to provide the following information to you in the interests of transparency and accountability and in light of the seriousness with which concerns regarding child protection are dealt with by ACFID.

Please note that both the information in this letter in regard to the investigations of the complaints that you lodged with ACFID and the result of the CCC’s own inquiry, are subject to the confidentiality and privacy provisions of ACFID’s complaints handling process. I ask that you respect these provisions.

The CCC has determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation into one of your complaints and that no breach had occurred in regard to your other complaint. In regard to the latter, the CCC noted that our member organisation dealt with your queries in what it considered to be a thorough, reasonable and timely manner and that no breach had occurred in regard to Code Section D.2.4 Conflict of Interest .

The CCC may initiate inquiries into areas of signatories’ practice which may have an impact on the wider aid and development sector but which does not fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct; and further, they may initiate inquiries into potential breaches of the Code in the absence of a formal complaint.

While ACFID requested you pursue the matter you raised formally through Code of Conduct complaints process, I acknowledge your choice not to. However, due to the serious nature of your concerns, the CCC has conducted an inquiry into matters raised in your correspondence since February.

This inquiry has been completed and the CCC determined that no breach had occurred in relation to the relevant obligations in the ACFID Code of Conduct, including relationships with partners, child protection and the rights of vulnerable and marginalized people.

In making this determination, the Committee noted our member organisation has used all reasonable efforts to determine the legal basis for actions taken by its partner, that these actions were taken with the requisite approval of relevant authorities in Cambodia and that any remaining legal issues could only be resolved through judicial and/or administrative means in Cambodia rather than through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as the ACFID Code of Conduct complaints handling process.

Speaking on behalf of the Executive Committee, I am satisfied that the CCC has investigated these matters in accordance with its mandate and with due regard to the seriousness of the issues and the best interests of the children involved. I am also pleased to note that the children have –with the required approval of the Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSAVY) – now been reintegrated with their family.

Finally, ACFID recognises that there are systemic issues with orphanages in Cambodia and I thank you for bringing these to ACFID’s attention. ACFID is currently examining ways to address these issues in cooperation with relevant agencies in Australia and Cambodia.

As explained in Mr. Purcell’s letter to you of 7 March 2014, ACFID’s primary contribution to improving child protection in developing countries is through setting standards, monitoring compliance with those standards, addressing complaints in relation to compliance with those standards and building the capacity of Code signatory organisations to meet those standards in context specific ways. These child protection standards, which apply to all Code signatory organisations regardless of where they work, are reviewed and where necessary revised on a regular basis; in part informed by issues that emerge through ACFID’s complaints handling process.

ACFID also works with DFAT to improve child protection in the delivery of Australia’s aid program, including through contributing to the development and socialisation of DFAT’s child protection guidelines and facilitating DFAT-led training with our member agencies.

I hope you can see from this information that from the first point in time in February 2014 when you contacted us to raise your concerns ACFID has engaged comprehensively with the serious issues you raise according to our powers. I believe we have made all efforts we can to ascertain the situation and that we have taken the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. I thank you for bringing this serious matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely

Sam Mostyn President 

7 July 2014 

# 75 Global Development Group refuses to provide Chanti and Chhork with MOUs as requested

Directors of the Global Development Group Board

Unit 6

734 Underwood Road

Rochedale, QLD 4123

30^th June 2014

Dear                David James Pearson

Geoffrey Winston Armstrong

Ofelia (fe) Luscombe

Alan Benson

David Robertson

I am writing on Chanti’s and Chhork’s behalf from Cambodia in my capacity as their legally appointed advocate.

It is now five weeks since Chanti and Chhork sent their request to you that they be provided with copies of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs that both Citipointe and GDG claim gave the church to the right to remove and Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008 and detain them for close to 5 years contrary to the express wishes of their parents.

Can you provide me with a time frame within which Chanti and Chhork might receive a response to their 23^rd May request?

I have included the text of Chanti’s and Chhork’s request below.

On a different but related topic, I wonder if the Global Development Group would care to comment on the fact that one of its funding partners (the Cambodian Children’s Fund) has as the head of its Child Protection Unit a convicted Australian criminal (and former Australian Federal police officer) by the name of James Mc Cabe? The appointment of such a man to head up a Child Protection Unit would, as you know, not be allowed in Australia.

Did GDG fail to pick up the appointment of James Mc Cabe during its assessment and monitoring processes? Or, if GDG has been aware all along of Mc Cabe’s criminal record, do you board members believe his appointment to be in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the ACFID Code of Conduct?

best wishes

James Ricketson

CHANTI AND CHHORK’S REQUEST OF THE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP – dated 23^rd May 2014

We are the Cambodian mother and father of Chanti Rosa and Chanty Cheata. Our daughters have lived in Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ since 2008 against our wishes.

The Global Development Group (GDG), of which you are Executive Director, provides funding to Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home.’ This funding has been approved, through the Australian Council for International Development, by AusAID.

The GDG is bound by the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct and is obliged, in accordance with the Code, to be ‘transparent’. The meaning of the word ‘transparent’ is clear in the Code of Conduct.

‘An organisation’s openness about its activities, providing information on what it 
is doing, where and how this takes place and how it is performing’.

Neither Citipointe church nor GDG has provided us with any of the information we have requested since Citipointe church removed our daughters from their home in 2008. Instead, the church keeps promising to return our daughters but never does.

We have read the ACFID Code of Conduct and understand that we, as parents of Rosa and Cheata, are known as ‘stakeholders.’ We read the following in the Code of Conduct:

B.1.1 Accountability to primary stakeholders

Signatory organisations will ensure that their purpose and processes are shaped by stakeholders and that their work is open to review and comment by partners and participants alike. In all instances those directly affected by aid and development activities are considered the primary stakeholders and their views afforded the highest priority.

Obligation:

Signatory organisations will prioritise accountability to local people and those directly 
affected by aid and development activities, prioritising their needs and rights

As stakeholders our views about Citipointe church’s refusal to return our daughters have been ignored. As stakeholders our needs and rights have been ignored. We are told that our rights are outlined in two Memoranda of Understanding Citipointe church entered into with the Cambodia government – the first in 2008 and the second in 2009. Citipoint church and your own GDG have refused to provide us with copies of the two MOUs so we do not know what our rights are or what we must do to have our daughters returned to us.

As a ‘signatory organisation’ (to the ACFID Code) the GDG is obliged to “analyse the needs and expectations of key stakeholders in all aid and development activities, pursuing informed and balanced accountability to each.” Our own needs and expectations have been ignored for nearly 6 years.

We request that the Global Development Group provide us with (a) Annual self-assessment by GDG for the years 2008 - 2014 “by the signatory organisation’s governing body”, and

(b) a reason why our complaints to Citipointe since 2008 have been ignored. It is the responsibility of the GDG to see to it that there is  “an independent complaints handling and discipline process.”

Finally, the Code of Conduct is clear about the Global Development Group’s obligations:

“Obligations on the signatory organisation to be ethical and transparent in marketing, fundraising and reporting.”

Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has behaved in an unethical way by presenting our daughters to sponsors and donors as victims of human trafficking. The ‘contract’ Citipointe tricked me, as mother, into signing on 31^st July 2008 makes it clear that it was only the fact that the family was very poor at the time that caused me to ask the church for help for a short time. Rosa and Chita were not victims of human trafficking. I have never been a victim of human trafficking myself, even though Citipointe says that I was.

Could you please provide us both, as parents, with answers to our questions and with copies of any documents the Global Development Group has in its possession that relate to our daughters removal and detention by your funding partner, Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ – as you are required to do as signatories of the ACFID Code of Conduct?

Yem Chanti                                     Both Chhork

                        Mother                                              Father

# 74 THE BITTER SWEET TASTE OF SUCCESS

 The return to their family of Rosa and Chita two days ago, stolen by Brisbane-based Citipointe church close to 6 years ago, should have been a joyous occasion. It was not. For reasons that I can only speculate about, Citipointe chose to make the re-integration as traumatic as possible for the girls.

Rosa and Chita will survive. They will get over this latest human rights abuse inflicted by Citipointe church, but it will take time.

Before recounting the events of the last few days, I would like to acknowledge the important role played by the ABC. A couple of months ago Lateline’s Steve Cunnane ran a story that was seen by many more people than read my blog, giving the story ‘legs’.

One of those who viewed Lateline was Mr Michael Johnson, a Brisbane based barrister and former member of parliament. He offered to act pro bono on behalf of Chanti and Chhork and wrote to the church. (See below if interested) Michael’s letter set in motion a sequence of events that led to the bitter-sweet conclusion of two days ago.

Without the ABC, without ‘Lateline’ and ‘Four Corners’ and other such programs unafraid to ask difficult questions and hold people in positions of power accountable, our democracy would be greatly diminished. The ABC is a national treasure. And without lawyers with a pro bono passion to see justice done, the poor and powerless are all too easily screwed by the rich and powerful. Thank you ABC. Thank you Michael Johnson.

The release of Rosa and Chita back into their family two days ago should have been an occasion for unalloyed joy and celebration. It has not turned out that way.  Rosa and Chita are both in shock.  The church gave the girls no notice that they were about to be torn away from their ‘SHE Rescue Home’ friends, their school mates and teachers, their familiar surroundings and daily routines. The only world they have known for the past six years was destroyed by Citipointe’s lack of empathy (and perhaps even concern) for the impact this would have on an 11 and a 12 year old girl - both unceremoniously delivered back to their family, unannounced, in a materially poor village in which there are none of the first world amenities Rosa and Chita had become accustomed to, living in a Christian institution.

The re-integration of children back into their families after a long absence is a process that must happen slowly, step by step, with the emotional and psychological well-being of the children always foremost in the minds of the adults in control of re-integration. The lack of such a process here has resulted in Chita spending much of the past 2 days in tears. She misses her friends. She refuses to speak with anyone, has withdrawn into herself and appears to be very depressed. Rosa is coping better but only just. If Citipointe had set out to make the re-integration process as painful as possible for the girls, the church could not have chosen a better way to do so. It seems that Citipointe, in a panic that the church might be sued by Micharl Johnson for the illegal 2008 removal of the girls, chose to get rid of them poste haste – hoping that in so doing questions surrounding the legality of the church’s removal and detention would simply disappear. The church has put self-interest above the emotional needs of the girls during what Pastors Leigh Ramsey and Brian Mulheran knew in advance would be a difficult transition.

The re-integration process, after six years of institutional living, should have occurred slowly and in accordance with a well thought out plan. Rosa and Chita should have been allowed weekend visits to their family for a few months to give them a chance to become accustomed to the radical changes that were to occur in their lives. They should be allowed, now, to maintain contact with the friends they have grown to love within the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ this past six years. They should have been given the opportunity to finish one school term in their Citipointe school and start a new term in their new school. As it has turned out, I was two hours away from flying back to Australia when I learnt that Citipointe had delivered the girls back to their family two days ago – the parents, Chanti and Chhork instructed to place their thumb prints on a document (which they could not read) that absolves the church of any wrong-doing (read below is such details are of interest).

I had to cancel my flight to Australia and have spent much of today arranging for the girls to be enrolled in a new school.

It would seem that Citipointe has timed the return of Rosa and Chita to occur at a time when I was not in the country and to do it in such a way as to cause maximum distress to the girls themselves – thus making them want to return to the ‘SHE Rescue Home’.

After all these years of coming to Cambodia, knowing the country well and understanding the way corruption works (it pervades every aspect of life here), I am nonetheless astounded that Citipointe has been able to manipulate the Cambodian judiciary and the Ministry of Social Affairs in such a way as to leave the church free to steal the daughters of materially poor Cambodians with impunity. More shocking, perhaps, is the fact that such illegal removals can occur with the full knowledge and tacit approval of the Australian Ambassador to Cambodia and the Department of Foreign Affairs; that the Australian Council for International Development – whose job it is to see to it that AusAID-approved NGOs obey the law of their host country and the ACFIF Code of Conduct – refuses to even ask Citipointe, or its funding partner the Global Development Group, to produce documentary evidence of the legality of its 2008 removal of the girls.

The two beds in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ occupied by Rosa and Chita will soon be filled by two other girls whose materially poor parents will have been duped into believing the church wants to help them. They will soon discover that they have lost all their rights as parents guaranteed by Cambodian law, by Australian law and by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The illegal removal of these two girls will be funded by AusAID approved tax-deductible charity dollars. The two girls will be re-packaged for gullible sponsors and donors as  ‘victims of human trafficking’. This will result in vast sums of money flowing into the coffers of Citipointe, whilst the church pursues its other religious goal – turning these girls into young Pentecostals and, in the process, alienating them from their family, their community, their culture and their religion.

There are days when Cambodia breaks your heart. Today is one of them for me. The bitter taste is offset by the sweetness of seeing Chanti’s family together for the first time in six years.

PS

Citipointe’s farewell gift to Rosa and Chita was a 50 kilo bag of rice ($35) and two second hand bicycles ($60).

# 73 to Ms Sam Mostyn, President, ACFID, requesting yet again copies of MOUs, dated 30th May 2014

Ms Sam Mostyn, President

Australian Council for International Development and

ACFID Code of Conduct Committee

12 Napier Close, Deakin ACT 2600                                                              

30th May 2014

Dear    Ms Sam Mostyn and

Dr Sue-Anne Wallace

Greg Brown

John Gilmore

Bandula Gonsalkorale

Harwood Lockton

Dr Petrus Usmanij

Fadlullah Wilmot

Dr Simon Smith

Michelle Pearce

Julie Mundy

With no prior warning, Citipointe church delivered Rosa and Chita back to their family two days ago. There was no re-integration program and the girls had no opportunity to say goodbye to their friends. Chita, in particular, is so devastated that she cannot speak and is in tears most of the time. Rosa is faring better but is also in a state of shock.

I have little doubt but that this sudden delivery of Rosa and Chita to their family on the part of Citipointe is a response to the legal letter from Mr Michael Johnson written to Citipointe on 2^nd. May. In releasing the girls in this manner, Citipointe hopes that all questions about the illegal removal and detention of them will disappear. This is not so.

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked you, as President of ACFID, Ms Mostyn and you as Chair of the ACFiD Code of Conduct committee, Dr Wallace, if you believe the parents, Chanti and Chhork, are entitled to be provided with copies of the MOUs relating to the removal of their daughters. You have both refused to answer this question many times now – despite the ACFID Code of Conduct being quite clear about the parents rights vis a vis acquiring copies of these MOUs.

On 23^rd. May Chanti and Chhork made a formal request, in writing, to the Global Development Group, to be provided with copies of the MOUs – as is their right as ‘stakeholders’. In the event that GDG refuses Chanti and Chhork’s request, will the Australian Council for International Development insist that GDG hand over copies of the MOUs? This is not a rhetorical question. As a matter of professional and personal courtesy I would appreciate a response to it.

ACFID could obtain copies of the MOUs with just one phone call. If these MOUs do indeed give the Global Development Group and Citipointe the rights they have exerted in relation to Rosa and Chita’s custody this past close-to-six years, neither NGO has anything to fear from the contents of the MOUs being made public.

best wises

James Ricketson

cc The Hon Julie Bishop MP, Foreign Minister

# 72 to Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran 2 days after the unannounced and unplanned return of Rosa and Chita, dated 30th May 2014

Pastors Leigh Ramsey and Brian Mulheran

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152                                                                                          

30th May 2014

Dear Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran

I had no choice but to cancel my flight back to Australia; to stay in Cambodia to try, as best I can, to help with the emotional mess your church has created. Both Rosa and Chita are in shock at the sudden and unannounced transformation in their lives. Chita is quite traumatized. She has been in tears for much for the past 18 hours and has slipped into what could best be described as a form of catatonic depression. One day she was living in a Christian institution in Phnom Penh, with a secure lifestyle and a group of friends; the next she is dumped in a materially poor village with a family that was given no warning at all of their impending arrival. How could Citipointe be so lacking in even a basic understanding of child psychology and of the effect so rapid a transformation would have on an 11 year old girl who has spent more than half her life in an institution?

It is now close to six years since Citipointe illegally removed Rosa and Chita from their home, using the sham 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’. And then, on 28^th May 2014 representatives of your church arrive at Chanti and Chhork’s village with Rosa and Chita and present the parents with an equally sham ‘contract’ for them to sign. Fearing that this may be their only opportunity to get their daughters back, Chanti and Chhork sign a document which, as with the 2008 ‘contract’ has no legal validity.

Citipointe’s dumping of the girls, unannounced, is compounded by the pathetic nature of your church’s parting gift to Rosa and Chita (and the family) – one 50 kilo bag of rice and 2 second hand bicycles. The combined value of these would be less than $100.

When I have done what I can to smooth the transition for Rosa and Chita from institutional living to village life I will put all of my effort into securing copies of the MOUs that both Citipointe and the Global Development Group insist gave you the right of removal and detention. If, as seems to be the case, the Australian Council for International Development refuses to ask for copies, I will pursue this matter in an Australian and/or international court and in other ways available to me now that the custody question has been resolved.

I again ask, as Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed advocate, that Citipointe church immediately produce copies of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs. I am copying this to various individuals in a position to insist that Citipointe produce the MOUs and to others who could well ask the question and draw their own conclusions as to why Citipointe refuses to produce them.

Please do not think that the return of Rosa and Chita is the end of this matter. It is the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. Your church will now trick some other parents into giving up their daughters and the pattern will be repeated, both in Cambodia and in India, until someone in a position to do so puts a stop to Citipointe’s child-stealing scam.

best wishes

James Ricketson

# 71 letter to Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran re secret agreement entered into by Citipiointe, 2 village elders and one policeman

Dear Leigh and Brian

As always, my letter speaks for itself.

I leave for Australia today and trust, if it is true that Citipointe intends to release Rosa and Chita, that this will happen in a timely fashion and in accordance with an agreed-upon reintegration program.

I trust also that, in accordance with the requests made many times this past five years, that Citipointe and/or the Global Development Group will supply MOUs to verify that the removal of the girls in 2008 and their detention since that time was legal.

best wishes

Pastors Leigh Ramsey and Brian Mulheran

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152

29th May 2014

Dear Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran

Chanti has, this morning, provided me with a copy of a document drawn up by the “Head of Ponley Nekom Village, Ba Poung Commune, Peam Rour District, Prey Veng Province.” It is dated 26^th May. I have attached a copy of the document in Khmer and a translation of it.

This 26^th May document makes reference to an agreement that has been witnessed by (1) Police of Peam Rour District and (2) Head of Ba Poung Commune, in addition to the signatory of it - the Head of Ponley Nekom Village.

There is no reference in this document to the nature of the agreement that has been entered into between these three men and Citipointe. There is no reference to Chanti and Chhork having been a party to this agreement – the terms and conditions of which Chanti and Chhork have no knowledge of.

In the preparation of whatever agreement has been entered into, Chanti and Chhork had no opportunity to be advised by anyone.

As Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed advocate I would have been in a position to provide some advice but had no knowledge of the agreement until after it was struck. As Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed counsel, Mr Michael Johnson would have been the person best suited to provide Chanti and Chhork with advice regarding whatever agreement Citipointe was proposing on 23^rd May.

Before asking Chanti and Chhork to enter into any other contractual agreements regarding Rosa and Chita, could you please provide copies of these to Chanti and Chhork, to myself and to Mr Michael Johnson.

If it is Citipointe’s intention to return Rosa and Chita to their family, as intimated in this 26^th May document, the re-integration process needs to be carried out in a way that minimizes the potential damage done to both Rosa and Chita and the family by their sudden transfer from a Christian institution in Phnom Penh to a Buddhist family in a fairly remote village in Prey Veng.

As Citipointe is aware from previous correspondence, I am in the process of trying to find a school that is appropriate for Rosa and Chita to attend such that they can continue their education at the level to which they have been accustomed this past six years. I do not know what this level is, what subjects they have been studying or any other particulars regarding their education. Could you please provide me with as much in formation as possible about Rosa and Chita’s education to date such that I can find the best possible school for them?

If Citipointe intends to return Rosa and Chita to their family it would be in the interests of both the girls and their family that this occurred during a school vacation. And it would be preferable if sufficient time elapsed between Citipointe’s decision to release the girls and the commencement of the new school term for all the necessary arrangements for the transfer to be made with a minimum of disruption to their lives. As I may well be in Australia it would be appreciated if you could give me sufficient warning that the transfer is to take place so that I can travel to Cambodia and assist the family in adjusting to the new state of affairs.

Regardless of our differences, the re-integration process is one that Citipointe and I must work on together. There needs to be an agreed-upon time-table, in writing, such that Chanti and Chhork know what their rights, responsibilities and obligations are; such that both Citipointe and I know what our respective responsibilities are vis a vis Rosa and Chita over the next few years.

The first step in achieving a smooth transition for Rosa and Chita back into the family is for Citipointe to let Chanti, Chhork, myself  and Mr Michael Johnson know precisely what the nature of the agreement is that has been entered into between Citipointe and the three men referred to in the document signed by the Head of Ponley Nekom Village on 26^th May.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Events moved very fast this day, as I was packing to leave for the airport. There was some confusion (a lot, as it transpired) as to what was going on; what had already gone on. Shortly after sending the above letter to Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran, I sent the following note.

“Closer questioning of Chanti revealed that yesterday, after promising me that they would sign no more documents without first showing them to Mr Johnson and myself, representatives of the church arrived at their home and told them the must place their thumb prints on certain documents if they wanted to get Rosa and Chita returned to their care. 

Given Chanti's promise to me yesterday, she was reluctant to admit that she had a copy of the document she and Chhork signed. I am having it translated now but it seems that Citipointe has decided to intimidate Chanti and Chhork into signing a document that will see the release back into their care of Rosa and Chita.

If this is what the translation reveals, I would like to point out that for five years Citipointe has been maintaining that the decision to release the girls was one to be made by the Ministry of Social Affairs.

As soon as have an accurate translation I will write again - either from Cambodia or Australia.

best wishes

An hour later I had a translation:

CONFIRMATION

            Reference on request of YEM CHANTHY, dated 31^st July 2008 to International C T Phnom Penh Organization of Recuse and Care in order to accept my two children to adopt and take care and studying ago and also I still recognize for official because of I made in without forcing from any person.

Date, May 28, 2014

                        Witness                                                           Thumbprint of Spouse

Chief Office of Peam Ror District                Husband                                Wife

CHEA SOKHA                                        PHUN CHHORK              YEM CHANTHY

       Head of Ponley Nekhom

                 Signature

               TEP PHUN

Certified

Having seen applicant

has made in front of us in genuine

Date: May 28, 2014

Head of Commune

(Signed and Sealed)

Upon talking to Chanti and Chhork with a proper interpreter I learnt, to my shock, that Citipointe had dumped Rosa and Chita with their parents the day beforehand – a fact I had not picked up because Chanti (whose English is rudimentary) had used (or it seemed so to me) the future tense, not the past! I now wrote the following:

Dear Leigh and Brian

When Chanti and Chhork told me this morning that Rosa and Chita were to be returned to the family they used the future tense. Upon conducting an interview with them just now, with a competent translator, I learnt that representatives of your church turned up yesterday with Rosa and Chita and presented their parents with an ultimatum. Here are the girls, if you want them to stay, place your thumb prints here.

Under these circumstances I can understand why, after so many years of false promises, Chanti and Chhork took the opportunity and placed their thumb prints of a document which attempts to provide retrospective validity to the 31st July 2008 'contract'.

The speed with which this has happened, the total lack of a reintegration process, of consultation,  is clearly a response to the legal letter from Mr Michael Johnson. Citipointe knew that whilst it could ignore me it could not ignore a barrister prepared to take this matter to whatever court was required for it to be resolved in accordance with the law.

Two points need to be made here:

(1) Citipointe has yet to provide any evidence at all that its removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 was legal and

(2) Citipointe's dumping of Rosa and Chita at the drop of a hat, in the total absence of due process, and with no offer to assist them from here on in in their lives, reveals the true motives of the church in keeping them this long. From what Chanti and Chhork tell me the sum total of the church's assistance to the reintegration of the girls back into the family is one 50 kg bag of rice and two bicycles - with a total value of around $100.

(3) Citipointe will now be free to trick some other materially poor parents to give up their daughters to fill the beds vacated by Rosa and Chita. Given that it has taken me close to six years to get Rosa and Chita back (with the vital help of Mr Michael Johnson) these poor Cambodian parents have little or no chance of getting their daughters back.

Whilst it is good that Rosa and Chita have been returned to their family, the circumstances surrounding their return leaves so many questions unanswered - the key one being: "Where are the MOUs that gave Citipointe the right to take the girls in the first place?"

best wishes