# 55 ACFID'S refusal to abide by its own Code of Conduct and ask questions relating to the legality of Citipointe church's removal of Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008

The Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), whose job  it is to see that NGOs in receipt of AusAID approved tax-deductible funding act in accordance with  the ACFID Code of Conduct, does not abide by its own Code. ACFID refuses to ask Citipointe or the Global Development Group to produce MOUs or any other documents these NGOs have in their possession pertaining to the removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008 and their detention in a Pentecostal institution in Phnom Penh since then.

Chita and Rosa 

Ms Sam Mostyn

President

Australian Council for International Development                           10^th April 2014

Dear Ms Mostyn

It is now more than seven weeks since I wrote my first letter to you, on 18^th Feb. You have acknowledge receipt of any of my letters.

May I refer you to:

E.3 ACFID Code of Conduct Complaints Handling, Scope of complaints process

vi The Code of Conduct Committee may initiate its own Inquiry into an issue which may have sector wide significance…

and

The Code of Conduct complaints process will be conducted independently of ACFID governance bodies and signatory organisations.

vii If either of the parties is not satisfied with the outcome of a Code of Conduct Committee investigation, they may lodge an appeal with the Code of Conduct Appeals Officers. Appeals may only be submitted in cases where ACFID itself was the complainant in the first instance or where the Code of Conduct Committee had initiated its own inquiry. (italics mine)

Given that ACFID is able to initiate its own enquiries, why do you resolutely refuse to ask Citipointe church and the Global Development Group to provide (1) Copes of the 2008 and 2009 MOUs and (2) Any court document that either NGO has in its possession that awards legal custody of Rosa and Chita to the church? You do not require a complaint from myself to ask this question.  Why is ACFID protecting Citipointe and the Global Development Group from the kind of scrutiny that ACFID is there to provide?

My questions to you remain as they were 7 weeks ago:

“Do parents in the 3^rd world whose children are removed by Australian NGOs (supposedly working in accordance with the ACFID Code of Conduct) have a right to be provided with documents relating to the legality of their children’s removal; a right to (a) be provided with copies of  MOUs, (b) be provided with reasons for their children’s removal, (c) be provided with an avenue of appeal against the decision to remove, (d) to be informed as to their visitation rights, (e) be able to request that their children not be indoctrinated into a branch of the Christian faith, and (f) of what they must do to get their children back?”

best wishes

 James Ricketson

Rosa and Chita being 'groomed' by Citipointe in preparation for their removal from the family. This same practice continues today with other faith-based NGOS is Cambodia

Chita, a couple of weeks before her illegal removal by Citipointe

A rare home visit for the girls

Poor though she may have been, Rosa was a very happy and much loved child who was well fed. So was Chita. Her crime, Chita's crime, the family's crime was that they were poor Buddhists, not Christians. I wonder what Citipointe's God makes of the church's kidnapping of children in His name!

2006. Chanti makes a modest living selling cool drinks to thirsty passers by from the red ice-box.

Chita, in the hands of Christians who truly believe they are doing girls like these a favour in 'rescuing' them from their poor heathen families and indoctrinating them into the Christian faith. With the complicity of a corrupt Cambodian government a 'stolen generation' of Cambodian children is in the making.