Given that Pastor Brian Mulheran, on behalf of Citipointe church, has been given the job of rewriting the history of how it is that Rosa and Chita came to be in the care of Citipointe church, some unexpurgated history is in order - especially given that Pastor Mulheran's threats to have me 'forcibly removed' are based on the demonstrably false premise that these girls were victims of Human Trafficking. You will note, dear Reader, how Citipointe uses Chab Dai and LICADHO to provide justification for its restricting Chanti's access to her own daughters to 24 hours per annum - a clear human rights abuse:
20th Nov 2008
Dear Members of Citipointe Church
I
trust that readers of this email have the capacity to think independently and a
desire to know the truth about activities being conducted by Citipointe
Church.
Below
is an edited version of correspondence I have had with members of your church
regarding Citipointe’s SHE program in Cambodia. The email exchange has
not been edited in such a way as to alter the meaning of what has occurred –
only to spare you the need to read repetitions of points already made. If the
powers that be at Citipointe tell you that my edited emails misrepresent
Citipointe in any way, ask to see my original emails and Citipointe’s emails to
me.
I
do not want or expect you to believe anything I say. I wish you merely to
acquaint yourselves with the facts and make up your own minds as to whether or
not my assertion that Citipointe Church is engaged in the ‘stealing’ of the
children of impoverished Cambodian parents is worthy of consideration or not.
An
important point to bear in mind as you read this is that Citipointe has, on
many occasions now (in emails to me, telephone conversations and in
conversations with other Cambodian NGOs, insisted that it has entered into a
contract with the young mother to whom the bulk of this correspondence refers.
It was not until two days ago that I was able to obtain a copy of this
‘contract’ and have it translated. You will note that it has not been signed by
Citipointe Church or by any representative of Citipointe’s SHE program in Phnom
Penh. Even by the rather shoddy standards of Cambodian law this document is
worthless. Moreover, the signatories to it, Chanti and her mother, neither read
nor write Khmer (the language in which the ‘contract’ was written) and believed
that they were entering into a contract with one of Cambodia’s leading human
rights organizations – LICADHO.
KINGDOM
OF CAMBODIA
Nation
Religion King
name:
YEM CHANTHY, age 21, and name: CHAB VANNA, age 52, job: morning glory seller,
address: along the riverfront street, Central market.
TO
Director
of CT Point International Rescue and Care Organization
Objective:
request for my child or grandchild, name: CHANTHY ROZA, sex: female, age: 6 and
name: CHANTHY CHEATA, sex: female, age:3 to stay in the center of CT Point
International Rescue and Care Organization.
As
mentioned in the objective, we, both are mother and grandmother of the above two
children, would like to inform the Director that: nowadays, we have no house,
living along the street and have no job and cannot provide enough food for
feeding the two children. Moreover, we would like the two children to have safe
shelter and get enough food, as well as education.
As
mentioned, please the Director permits our two children to live in the care
center by favor.
Please
the Director receives the great respect from us.
Phnom
Penh, Date: July 31, 2008
Mother's
thumbprint
Grandmother's thumbprint
With
foreknowledge of the contents of this ‘contract’ please read the following
carefully and ask of your Church whatever questions you feel to be appropriate.
If those who occupy the senior positions of Citipointe Church do not, cannot or
refuse to answer your questions I trust that you will begin to wonder what else
there may be about Citipointe that is not quite as it appears to be – and
certainly not as it is presented on the Citipointe website.
Other
information that may be of value as you begin to read this is that I have known
the mother (Chanti) and her mother (Vanna) for fourteen years and the young
girls in question (Rosa and Srey Mal – also known as Cheata) pretty much all of
their lives.
If
any reader of this would like to know more, please feel free to ask any
question you like. You are now part of an open forum relating to Citipointe’s
activities in Cambodia and your feedback is welcome.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
I
received no response to this email so traveled to Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to
visit Chanti – now living on a boat moored at the edge of the river and making
a meager living selling cold drinks and snacks. Citipointe had not made contact
with Chanti to arrange for her to spend any part of the Water Festival with her
children.
Date:
Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:44:46 +0000
Dear
Citipointe
I
was delighted yesterday to be met with a happy smiling Chanti clutching $25 she
had just earnt renting out the boat she has sublet and on which she, her
husband, mother and baby now live. Chanti also has a small stall – selling
water, beer, cigarettes, snacks and large grape fruit. Judging from what I saw
yesterday her business is doing well.
Who
knows where her boat renting business and small stall will lead Chanti. If she
works hard she may well do well. She is certainly smart enough to do so. The
question now is whether or not she has the discipline to stick with what she is
doing. If, in two years time, Chanti has established herself as a modestly
successful small businesswoman she may well be in a position to take care of
Rosa and Srey Mal in a way that does not expose them to the dangers of the
street. If this be the case it would be most unfortunate if (a) Chanti had
essentially signed her kids away to Citipointe until they are 18 or (b)
Citipointe has alienated Rosa and Srey Mal from their mother and grandmother
through religious indoctrination and/or by allowing mother, grandmother and children
only 2 hours of supervised access to each other each month. Such a visitation
schedule amounts to 24 hours of supervised access each year or one full day per
annum. This is, in my estimation, an abrogation of the human rights of Chanti,
Vanna, Rosa and Srey Mal. I will go further. I believe it to be a form of child
abuse. Citipointe could not get away with such a visitation regime in Australia
and, leaving the legal question aside, should not even consider such a regime
for moral reasons.
Rosa
and Srey Mal are Chanti’s children. They do not belong to Citipointe.
Citipointe is merely providing what will hopefully be only an interim solution
to the family’s problems. Foremost in Citipointe’s thinking should be, “How can
we best serve this little family such that they can all live together again in
the not too distant future?” What is the logic that informs Citipointe’s
insistence that mother, grandmother and children should get to see each other
only once a month? And what is the purpose of these visits being supervised?
Attributing this policy to LICADHO or Chab Dai is not an answer to the
question. I want to know why Citipointe has put in place such policies?s
Yesterday,
along with thousands of others, I stood at the side of the road and watched a procession
of floats pass the Royal Palace – the first of a series of events which are of
great cultural significance to Cambodians in the lead up to the Water Festival.
Over the past few years I have done so with Rosa, Srey Mal, Chanti and Vanna at
my side. I trust that during the Water Festival itself Chanti, Rosa, Srey Mal,
Vanna and I will be able to enjoy the festive atmosphere together – without the
presence of Citipointe staff. If this means abrogating Citipointe’s agreement
with Chab Dai, so be it. Chab Dai has no right to be dictating to fellow NGOs
how they should behave – especially if this involves forcing Citipointe to
abrogate the agreement it entered into with Chanti before she agreed to allow
Citipointe to foster her children.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
On
the day of my arrival n Phnom Penh Chanti’s husband called Citipointe to
request that Rosa and Srey Mal be allowed to spend time with their family
during the festival. His request was ignored.
...to be continued...
