Chanti and Chhork and family. A photo album. The family now owns a one hectare rice paddy.

Dear Leigh

Here are a few photos of the family you broke up five years ago.  It is a very happy family, though the absence of Rosa and Chita weighs on them all at times – particularly Chanti. And particularly Chanti when, yet again, she has been told by Citipointe that Rosa and Chita will be returned to the family soon.

James,Chhork, Kevin, Chanti, Srey Ka, baby Poppy and Vanna

The last time had her heart broken with promises made and unfulfilled was just after I delivered the court papers to the She Rescue Home early this month. Citipointe was supposed to respond to these papers within 7 days. 14 days have elapsed now and you have not responded – other than to assure Chanti that she and Chhork will get Rosa and Chita back ‘soon’. You have been telling them this for five years now!

The three women with Chhork are her sisters. They all live in the same village that Chanti and Chhork live in – along with their husbands and children. All up, there are 7 of Chhork’s siblings living in this village, plus his father. The women all help each other take care of their many children. 

Chhork and three of his sisters who live in the same village

This is the family and community support network that Citipointe could have tapped into five years ago if you had bothered to visit the village. You did not. You told me at the time that you were, prior to accepting Rosa and Chita for short term care at the SHE Rescue Home, going to speak with the family’s Village Chief. You never did. If you had you would have discovered that the Village Chief is Chhork’s father and that there was a great support network for Chanti and Chhork. What was lacking was money. Everyone in the village is poor.

Chanti and the family's one hectare rice paddy

Chanti and Chhork now own one hectare of  rice paddy and will, shortly, add rice-farming to their various income streams. It cost $2,000.

Chanti and Poppy

As you know it was not possible for me, until a year ago, to provide Chanti and her family with anything other than band aid help. In an Australian context I was close to being as poor as they were – though never, of course, without a roof over my head or food to eat.

Chanti, Poppy, Srey Ka and James

This past 12 months it has been possible for me to help out more substantially, here is what I have outlaid:

One block of land with a house                                      $1,500

One block of land (next door) without a house               $1,200

Building materials                                                           $   500

Two tuk tuks (one stolen)                                                $2,800

One rice paddy – one hectare                                          $2,000

One toilet/bathroom                                                         $   800

One generator                                                                  $   300

Rice – 10 bags                                                                 $   400

Medical care and medicines                                                $   400

Total                                                                                $9,900

Chanti, Srey Ka, James, Chhork and Kevin

Let’s call it $10,000 – the sum that I have spent this past year to help Chanti and Chhork become self-sufficient.  Now, let’s compare what I have spent on helping the family become self-sufficient with what Citipoitne has spent. This is not hard to do since Citipointe has not spent one dollar to help this family this past five years.

Srey Ka and the family tuk tuk

Leaving aside the illegality of Citipointe’s removel of the girls and leaving aside the human rights abuses that this has involved, lets look at this scenario from a purely economic point of view.

Poppy and her grandmother, Vanna

It has cost me $10,000 to set the family up to become self-sufficient. How much has it cost Citipointe to keep Rosa and Chita in an institution this past five years? If it has cost more than $10,000 the removal of the girls makes no sense from an economic point of view. So let’s do some sums.

Chhork bathes Kevin

Divide $10,000 by 2 – Rosa and Chita. That’s $5,000 for each of them. From an economic point of view Citipointe’s care of the girls needs to come in at less than $5,000 each, this past five years, for institutional care to be a viable proposition. One does not need to be much of a mathematician to figure out that the figure Citipointe needs to justify its actions economically is les than $1000 per year per girl. Or $20 per week per girl.

Kevin, aged 3

Again, one does not need to be much of a mathematician to know that it has cost Citipointe considerably more that $20 a week to keep each of the girls in an institution. It does not really matter how much more than $20 a week it has cost your church. Anything more than $20 makes no sense economically. It would have been cheaper, five years ago, to have provided for the family in the way that I have provided for them this past year  - if, that is, Citipointe was ever serious about the re-integration of girls with their families; if your church was ever serious about helping the entire family and not just two members of it. 

These sums do not, of course, take into account the fact that you church has been generating income from Rosa and Chita through donations and sponsorships – not one cent of which has gone to the family. You have presented them to the world as victims of human trafficking when the truth is that it is Citipointe church that has stolen the children from their family and their community.

Chhork's father, 3rd from right, at his daughter's (and Chhork's sister's) wedding

I must return to Australia now but will return early in the new year to continue with the battle that Chanti and Chhork have been fighting for five years now to have their daughters returned to their care.

Citipointe's offer of money to Chanti and Chhok on receipt of the letter I wrote to the church earlier today

Dear Leigh

Further to my letter of earlier in the day:

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/2013/12/citipointes-legal-choices-1-fight-tooth.htm

Shortly after I sent it to you Chanti received a phone call from Citipointe offering her $800 to build a toilet for the family home. This is the first time in five and a half years that Citipointe has  made an offer of this kind. For five and a half years you have steadfastly refused to provide any assistance at all to the family.

As it happens, I have already given Chanti and Chhork $800 to buy a badly needed toilet. When Chanti informed Citipointe of this your church then offered to buy a generator and to have a well dug in their yard to provide them with clean water.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these offers of money, coming after five and a half years on no help at all, are directly related to Citipointe now having to deal with the court documents delivered to you yesterday.

Chanti and Chhork arrived in Phnom Penh half an hour ago and I have conducted an interview with them, with a competent translator. Both Chanti and Chhork made it quite apparent, in their interviews, that they were not interested in the money being offered to them by Citipointe; that they simply wanted their daughters returned to them. Rosa and Chita are not for sale to anyone – including Citipointe church – for any price.

As you know, Leigh, because I told you when first we met, Chanti turned down $10,000 that had been offered to her a decade or so ago to effectively sell Rosa. As with all things, you completely underestimate Chanti. No matter how much money you offer her she will turn it down and insist, as she has this past five years, that her daughters be returned to her.

Whether Citipointe’s decision to start throwing money at Chanti and Chhork is in the hope that they will drop their court case or whether it is because you hope that there is a sum that they will not be able to say no to, and so retain custody of Rosa and Chita, remains to be seen.

The behaviour of your church continues to be lacking of anything even vaguely approaching the values of the Christian faith you purport to follow. You have broken Cambodian law by illegally removing Rosa and Chita, have broekm Cambodian law by detaining them fir five and a half years against the express wishes of their parents and are now hoping that you can, with money, either save the church from public embarrassment or secure the custody of Rosa and Chita until they are 18 years old.

You are a disgrace, Leigh Ramsay.

best wishes

James Ricketson

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

Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152                                                                                 

6th Dec. 2013

Dear Leigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are plusses and minuses to both options. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

best wishes

James Ricketson

for Pastor Leigh Ramsay after delivery of court documents relating to the 'illegal detention' of Rosa and Chita by Citipointe church

Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152                                                                                 

5th Dec. 2013

Dear Leigh

Following on from my letters of 29^th Nov and 3^rd Dec.

Last week, when Chanti, Chhork and myself met with LICADHO, Chanti was in very good spirits, having yet again been told by Citipointe that Rosa and Chita would be returned to her soon. Then, when the LICADHO representative spoke with Citipointe on the phone and was informed that the girls would not be returning home, Chanti’s smile was wiped from her face. The following day she was ill with a fever. There was nothing medically wrong with her. My own feeling was that, yet again, her heart has been broken by Citipointe’s false promises.

It was at this point that I decided, finally, to pursue Citipointe through the court systems of Cambodia and Australia – starting with Cambodia.

This morning I drove to the Citipointe centre at Sangkat Boeng Tompun, Khan Meanchey to deliver a court document to Ms Nicole Robertt (attached), whom Chanti and Chhork are suing for ‘illegal detention’. The relevant part of this document reads, in a less-than-perfect translation:

          Regarding to the above subject and reference, I would like to inform His Excellency Mr. Prosecutor that the facts of this issue are as follows: I have two children—one is PHOUN ROSA, female, aged 11, and the other one is PHOUN THIDA, female, aged 9. In 2008, I took the two children to seek temporary shelter with Citypoint organization because at that time I was very poor. In 2012, I had been working very hard to earn my living that I had quite better living standard enabling me to raise and send them to school like other children. I have been to the Organization to ask my children back many times, but the Organizagtion refused to give.

          His Excellency Mr. Prosecutor! In the name of their parents, I have been missing them very much and wanted them to come back to live with me. As for the two children are concerned, they also wanted to come and live with their parents. Obviously, every time when I went to meet them, they would cry by asking me to take them out from the Organization so that they can come and live at home.

          His Excellency Mr. Prosecutor! I saw that this act done by the Organization is a human illegal detention because:

-    My two children have no willingness to live with this Organziation anymore.

-    The thing that the Organization took my two children for raising is not a normal adoption or acted as a legal gurdian. Now the two children need to re-unite with their parents, but this Organization used detentive measures. This act breaches article 1020, 1023, 1024 of code of civil procedure.

          Actually, the law does not allow any one to take minor children to raise in such ways. This act is an explicit breach to code of criminal proceudre in article 253. 

          Regarding to this case, I would like to make the following request:

1. Punish Mr. Nicole Robertt in accordance with laws.

2. Request the above named person to give the two children back to me to take care of them personally.

As above mentioned, Please His Excellency Mr. Prosecutor, deliver judgment as I requested above at your favorable decision. 

Given that the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ had no interest at all in the evidence I had to present to it and given that the Ministry of Social Affairs has taken no interest in the matter, I will introduce the audio-visual evidence that I have which will leave little doubt in the mind of an impartial court as to the sequence of events that led to Citipointe not only illegally removing Rosa and Chita from the care of their family but of retaining custody for five years after the parents, Chanti and Chhork, expressly asked that their daughters be returned to them.

best wishes

James Ricketson