21 of the many questions that Citipointe will be obliged to answer in a public forum if the church decides to carry out its threat to sue me for defamation.

James Ricketson

316 Whale Beach Road

Palm Beach 2108

jamesricketson@gmail.com

0400959229

Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152

5^th April 2013

Dear Leigh

One of my sources within Citipointe tells me that the church will, again, threaten to sue me.  Sigh! If the rumour is true, an 18 page document will arrive from your lawyers filled with demands similar to those made in previous similar legal documents. As before, I will not meet any of Citipointe’s demands because I know that all I have written in my blog is true and that I can back it all up with audio-visual evidence.

Perhaps this time Citipointe is not bluffing. I hope this to be the case because it is time that the questions I have been asking for close to five years be asked in a forum where the combination of silence and lies employed by Citipointe will not suffice. In point form these questions will include:

(1) Why is the 31^st. July ‘contract’ between Chanti and Vanna and Citipointe not countersigned by anyone from either Citipointe church and the She Rescue Home?

(2) Why does the ‘contract’ contain no terms and conditions?

(3) Does the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ that Chanti and her mother Vanna applied their thumb prints to have any legal status at all?

If the answer to (3) is ‘no’, on what legal basis, on 31^st July 2008, was Citipointe holding Rosa and Chita?

(4) Between 31^st July and 11^th August 2008, did Citipointe enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the church’s custody of Rosa and Chita?

(5) If such a contract was entered into, what was the basis of it? That Rosa and Chita were the daughters of poor parents who needed interim help or that they were victims of some form of abuse or of Human Trafficking?

(6) If Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 31^st July and 11^th August 2008 on the basis that Rosa and Chita were victims of something, what evidence had emerged, during the previous 11 days, to change their status from the children of a poor family into victims that required close to total removal from their family?

(7) If Citipointe came into possession of information that warranted total removal of Rosa and Chita from their parents care between 31^st July and 11^th August 2011, was this information at any point passed on to Chanti, to Chhork (the father) or to Chanti’s  commune Chief?

(8) Is Citipointe sure that the information that altered Rosa and Chita’s status from the children of poor parents (31^st July 2008) to the victims of Human Trafficking (11^th August 2008) is true and accurate? This goes to the question of accountability and the right of the parents, Chanti and Chhork, to be appraised of the charges (implicit or explicit) that have been laid against them.

(9) Were Chanti and Chhork ever told, between 31^st July and 11^th August 2008 why Rosa and Chita had been removed from the family home until they reached 18 years of age?

(10) On 11^th August 2008, when Rebecca Brewer told both Chanti and myself that Rosa and Chita would stay with Citipointe until they were 18, was this based on a legally binding agreement that Citipointe had entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? (Citipointe has long ago acknowledged that at this time and for a year hence, no agreement had been entered into between Citipointe and the Ministry of Social Affairs.)

(11) Were Chanti and Chhork ever provided with a copy of the legal document/contract/agreement entered into by Citipointe and Foreign Affairs  that resulted in their daughters being removed from their care?

(12) Were Chanti and Chhol invited to comment at all, make observations about, the agreement that Citipointe had entered into with Foreign Affairs?

(13) If, between 31^st  July and 11^th August 2008, Citipointe had NOT entered into a legally binding agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on what legal basis was the church holding Rosa and Chita against the express wishes of their parents in August 2008?

(14) When, in Nov 2008, Chanti and Chhork (with me filming the telephone conversation) asked Citipointe for permission to take Rosa and Chita to Srey Veng  to visit both their extended families and Citipointe refused, on what legal basis was this refusal made?

I could go on with pages of such legal questions but I am sure you get the idea. For a court to make a determination as to whether or not I have defamed Citipointe, each of these questions would be addressed in some detail and Citipointe would not have the option of simply refusing to answer them as it has this past close to five years. Unless, of course, Citipointe chooses to sue me in a Cambodian court in which the definition of ‘defamation’ is very flexible indeed!

Then there are the moral questions:

(15) Why, in close to five years, has Citipointe made no contribution at all to the well-being of Chanti’s family as promised?

(16) Why, in close to five years, has Citipointe never once put in place or attempted to initiate a re-integration program for Rosa, Chita, Chanti and Chhork?

(17) Why, in close to five years, has Citipointe never once allowed Rosa and Chita to take part in any family, religious or cultural events at all?

(18) Why has Citipointe attempted (with mixed results) to indoctrinate Rosa and Chita (whose family is Buddhist) into Citipointe’s particular version of the Christian faith? (This indoctrination comes through very clearly in footage shot with Rosa and Chita this past close to five years.)

(19) What is the nature of the relationship between Citipointe and Hagar such that Hagar ‘clients;’ have no option but to attend Citipointe church services?

(20) Is it appropriate to pay Chanti 25 cents to make a bracelet that Citipointe sells for $3 – especially in light of the fact that Citipointe makes no contribution at all to the welfare of Chanti’s family?

(21) Is it appropriate that a senior Pastor of Citipointe church, a Christian (!)  should be issuing barely veiled threats to a filmmaker to have him ‘forcibly removed’, arrested, jailed and banned from visiting Cambodia again for asking questions such as the ones I am asking here?

Again, I could go on for pages but would only be repeating what I have already written in my blog. Right now my blog receives around 100 page hits a day. Not a lot. The page hit rate will increase dramatically, however, if Citipointe makes good its threat to sue me or to have me ‘forcibly removed’). And, of course, Citipointe will be providing me with tens of thousands of dollars free publicity for CHANTI’S WORLD if the church decides to actually sue me for defamation as opposed to threatening to sue me for defamation.

Another question that would probably be asked by many  readers of my blog (if not by the court) would be: “Why, given that Chhork now has a tuk tuk and the family a home in their village in Prey Veng, is Citipointe putting so much effort into PREVENTING reintegration? Why doesn’t the church simply say, “Chanti, it is great that with a bit of help from James you have managed to achieve something approaching financial security. We would love to help you and your family over the next 8 years (until Chita is 18) and this is what we would like to offer you…”

That the church does not make such an overture speaks volumes of Citipointe’s real agenda in Cambodia – unless, of course, Citipointe has some evidence that it chooses to share with no-one (and particularly not Chanti and Chhork) suggestive that Rosa and Chita would be ‘at risk’ if they were to be living with their family in Prey Veng. But if Rosa and Chita would be ‘at risk’ why are Citipointe, Chab Dai, LICADHO and the Ministryof Social Affairs not concerned about the ‘risk’ confronting Srey Ka – now roughloy the same age as Rosa and Chita were when Citipointe magically transformed them from victims of extreme poverty to victims of Human Trafficking. The questions multiply but all of those who should be insisting on answers remain mute and, in their muteness, become accessories to Citipointe’s removal of Rosa and Chita from their family’s care in a manner in which, I allege, contravenes both Cambodian and Ausatralian law. If my allegation is incorrect Citipointe has only to release the relevant legal documents to Chanti and Chhork so that they at least, are aware of why it is that for the next 8 years, their access to their daughters will be limited to between two and four hours per month.

best wishes

James Ricketson

A 'stolen generation' of Cambodian children?

“Citipointe has adopted a role in the lives of Rosa and Chita 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.”

So I wrote to Citipointe in October 2008 - 54 months ago.

“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?”

54 months later I have still not received an answer to this question – from Citipointe, from LICADHO or from the Ministry of Social Affairs. Much ore importantly, Chanti and Chhork, the parents of Rosa and Chita, have not received answers to questions such as this for 54 months. Any parents who loves their children would know, understand and empathize with the distress, the not-knowing, that such a silence from Citipointe, LICADHO and the Ministry of Social Affairs would cause.

More from October 2008:

 “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 (Chita)  have a right to maintain family relationships? If so, why were Rosa’s and (Chitas’) 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 Chita? If not, why not? If Citpointe is  supportive of the “ethnic, religious and cultural identity or values” of Rosa and Chita 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 Chita. 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…”

It is important to point out here that at the time Chanti and Vanna signed a ‘contract’ with Citipointe (31^st July 2008) which stated that they did not have a home, they did in fact have a home. The home was very basic but no more so than tens of thousands of Cambodians live in in Phnom Penh today. I filmed with Chanti in her family’s home up to and including the day when Rosa went to stay with Citipointe. The declaration, in the  ‘contract’ that Chanti and Vanna singhed with their thumb prints, a contract they could not read and did not understand, that they had no home in June 2008 is demonstrably untrue – as CHANTI’S WORLD  will revel.

“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…”

At this point I had not seen the ‘contract’ that Chanti had signed and had no reason not to believe that it contained the conditions that Citipointe had told Chanti it contained.

“ 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 Chita 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 Chita 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?...”

It is worth pointing out here that when Pastor Brian Mulheran told me the contract with Chanti limited her visiting rights to her daughters he was lying. The 31^st July 2008 contract makes no mention at all of Chanti’s visiting rights. Whether Pastor Mulheran was lying also when he attributed the limited vistiing rights to LICADHO and Chab Dai I have never been able to determine. It seems not, since neither organization has ever bothered to deny their involvement in this policy.

“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 Chita 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 Chita 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, Chita 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 Chita. 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 Chita 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 Chita 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 Chita 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 never did get a response to this email in which any of my questions were answered. This email of mine, sent 54 years ago and ignored by Citipointe, set the tone of our communications – broken only by the church’s occasional threats to sue me for defamation for having the temerity to ask the questions I ask and for accusing the church of stealing Rosa and Chita.

For 54 months now, Citipointe has been in a position in which it could so easily answer the bulk of my questions by producing the documents, the agreements, that give the church the legal right to hold Rosa and Chita until they are 18 against the wishes of their parents and regardless of the financial circumstances of the family. Citipointe church refuses to provide either Chanti and Chhok or myself with any such legally binding deocuments – raising, of course, the question as to whether they exist or not in the form that Citipointe believes gives the church the right to take complete and total control of children who have a mother, a father, a grandmother, four siblings, two extended families, a home in Prey Veng and two different forms of income. In addition, Chyanti’s family has myself – paying school fees, medical expenses and helping the family become self-sufficient in the way that Citipointe promised back in 2008. Citipointe has not lived up to one of the promises the church made to Chanti in 2008 and has no moral right to continue in the role as ‘foster carers’. Whether Citipointe has a legal right to do so is a question that it is impossible to get an answer to – from Citipointe, from LICADHO, from Chab Dai or from the Ministry of Social Affairs.

How many other Chantis and Chhorks, Rosa and Chita’s, are there living in what amounts to a Christian prison – the NGOs running them accountable to no-one?

More on the legality or otherwise of Citipointe's mid 2008 actions in forcibly removing Rosa and Chita from the care of their family contrary to the express wises of their mother, Chanti, and father, Chhork

The ‘contract’ that Chanti and her mother signed with their thumb prints on  31^st. July 2008 is not a legal contact. Rebecca Brewer’s declaration, 11 days later, on 11^th August 2008, that Citipointe would hold Rosa and Chita until they were 18 does not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have any legal validity – unless, of course, between 31^st July and 11^th August, Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If this is the case, why has Chanti never been provided with a copy of this agreement? Why was she newver consulted in the preparation of it since it is clear from the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ that she was placing Rosa and Chita in care as a result of her poverty and for no other reason

For 15 months Citipointe had only this non legally-bidning ‘contract’ to justify holding Rosa and Chita. Then Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation. Chanti has never been supplied with a copy of this agreement either.

The Ministry made the following comment to me in writing, however:

1)       For the SHE Rescue project, bring the children under the control and protection before signing the agreement was possible because the organization was already registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation already. 

2)       For the SHE resuce project, according to the agreement made with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation, the organization has projected to help victims of human trafficking and sex trade as well as families which fall so deep in poverty. After questioning directly, the ministry believes that Rosa must have been in any of the above categories.

The ‘must have been’ in italics suggests that no-one from MOSAVY actually checked to see which category Rosa fell into but took Citipointe’s word for it.

What MOSAVY seems to be implying here is that because Citipointe was registered as a refuge when it took Rosa and Chita into its care, Citipointe had a legal right to hold the girls despite their mother’s wishes that they be returned. Given that they were not victims of trafficking, Citipointe’s legal rights pertained to Rosa and Srey Mal’s ‘poverty’. And yet, at the time that Chanti was requesting vociferously that her children be returned to her (Nov 2008) she had both a home and an income. Today, Chant, Chhork and the family have a home and an income and yet Citipointe continues to insist that Rosa and Chita are ‘victims’. Victims of what? Who will ask this question of Citipointe and demand an answer? No0-one. Citipointe is a law unto itself and there is no mechanism in Cambodia whereby the NGO can be held accountable for its actions. LICADHO will not ask Citipointe to produce the documents that reveal the church’s legal right to have removed Rosa and Chita from the care of their parents in mid 2008. And nor will Chab Dai. An extraordinary state of affairs!