Leonard v. Lentz
| Decision Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 17–CV–3037–CJW,17–CV–3037–CJW |
| Citation | 297 F.Supp.3d 874 |
| Parties | Ozgur Can LEONARD, Petitioner, v. Rachel Joy LENTZ, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Ozgur Can Leonard, pro se.
Michael K. Lahammer, Lahammer Law Firm PC, Cedar Rapids, IA, Michael E. Manely, Pro Hac Vice, The Manely Firm, P.C., Marietta, GA, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("Hague Convention" or "Convention") as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act ("ICARA"), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq. , on Petitioner Ozgur Can Leonard's ("petitioner") Second Amended Verified Complaint Under The Hague Convention ("Complaint") (Doc. 57). The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all matters pertaining to this case, including final disposition, and the Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Court Judge, reassigned the instant case to the undersigned. (Doc. 84). After considering the testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, as well as the arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that respondent Rachel Joy Lentz ("respondent") is entitled to judgment in her favor.
Petitioner initiated this action on May 8, 2017, (Docs. 1–2), and filed the Complaint against respondent on September 14, 2017. (Doc. 57). In the Complaint, petitioner seeks the return of his three children to the Republic of Turkey, pursuant to the Hague Convention. (Doc. 57, at 15–17). On August 22, 2017,1 respondent filed an Answer (Doc. 42), denying having taken any wrongful action. Respondent further asserted that petitioner acquiesced to the removal of the children from Turkey and the return of the children to Turkey would create a grave risk that the children would suffer some physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the children in an intolerable situation.
The parties briefed the issues, and the Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard argument on October 18, 2017. The parties submitted supplemental briefs on October 25, 2017 (Docs. 86 and 87), which the Court has duly considered. The matter is now fully submitted and ready for decision.
Both petitioner and respondent were born in Istanbul, Turkey. (Doc. 57, at 3). Petitioner is a dual citizen of Turkey and the United States. (Id. ). Respondent is a United States citizen but was raised in, and spent most of her life in, Istanbul, Turkey. (Id. ). On May 29, 2014, petitioner and respondent were married in Turkey. (Id. ; Ex. 2, Doc. 85–3). Petitioner and respondent established their marital home in Gokceada, a Turkish island comprising part of the Canakkale Province. (Id. at 5). During all periods of marital cohabitation, the couple lived in Gokceada. In March of 2015, while residing in Gokceada with petitioner, respondent gave birth to petitioner's son, I.Y.L. (Id. ).
In August of 2015, respondent took I.Y.L. from Gokceada to Istanbul to reside with her parents, but petitioner did not leave Gokceada at this time. (Id. ). In or around September of 2015, petitioner learned respondent was pregnant with petitioner's twin daughters. (Doc. 75, at 3). Throughout respondent's pregnancy with the twin girls, she and petitioner were in contact regarding the pregnancy. (Doc. 57, at 5–6). On February 17, 2016, petitioner traveled from Gokceada to Istanbul to accompany respondent to her final medical appointments and to stay with her during and after the birth of the twins. (Id. at 6). Soon thereafter, respondent gave birth to E.M.L. and S.M.L. (Id. ). Following respondent's discharge from the hospital after giving birth, respondent chose to reside with her parents, rather than return to Gokceada. (Id. ).
Immediately following their birth, E.M.L. and S.M.L. were admitted to the Newborn Intensive Care Unit ("NICU"). (Id. ). E.M.L. was diagnosed with End–Stage Renal Disease ("ESRD") and required surgery. (Id. ). Petitioner paid for respondent to stay in a private room in the hospital for the twins' birth and also signed the consent forms for the twins' admission to the NICU and for E.M.L.'s surgery. (Id. ). Petitioner registered the twins' births and added them to his Turkish National Health Insurance. (Id. ). It is undisputed that petitioner and respondent are the parents of I.Y.L., E.M.L. and S.M.L. (Id. at 3). The children are all dual citizens of Turkey and the United States. (Id. ).
Petitioner remained in Istanbul for more than a month while E.M.L and S.M.L. were in the NICU, before eventually returning to his home in Gokceada. (Id. at 6–7). During this time, petitioner and respondent shared in the responsibility of meeting with physicians to discuss their daughters' conditions and to provide care for the twins. (Id. ). After their discharge from the NICU, E.M.L. began receiving treatment for her ESRD at the Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine ("Cerrahpasa"), which respondent believed could provide the best care in Turkey for E.M.L.'s condition. (Id. at 7–8).
During the time of the twins' hospitalization in the NICU, I.Y.L. celebrated his first birthday. The parties disagree as to the reason for petitioner's absence from the celebration—petitioner claims he was not invited to participate in his son's birthday, while respondent claims petitioner expressed no interest in celebrating birthdays and did not inquire as to I.Y.L.'s birthday. In any case, it is undisputed that petitioner was not present for the birthday celebration. (Id. at 7; see also Doc. 42, at 6).
Following the twins' hospitalization, respondent made plans to baptize I.Y.L. in Istanbul. (Doc. 57, at 8). Petitioner was apparently not involved in the planning of the baptism (id. ), although he did voice objections to the children being baptized by Father Agathangelos (Ex. R, Doc. 85–219, at 1 ()). Petitioner traveled back to Istanbul from June 9, 2016, through June 11, 2016, and visited with his children for eight to nine hours each day. (Doc. 57, at 8–9). These visits took place at respondent's parents' residence in Istanbul. (Id. ). Petitioner returned to Gokceada on June 12, 2016. (Id. ).
In sum, petitioner visited with each of his children daily for approximately one month following the twins' birth, and further spent eight to nine hours with the children each day for three days prior to the children's removal to the United States. Aside from the month following the twins' birth and the three-day visit, petitioner did not maintain a physical presence in his children's lives. Although petitioner was aware E.M.L. would require home dialysis treatment and that E.M.L.'s caretakers would need to undergo training to provide such treatment, petitioner declined to take part in any training sessions, even when invited to do so. Despite having had multiple opportunities to become fluent in E.M.L.'s home care needs, petitioner has still not been trained in providing home dialysis for E.M.L.
On June 14, 2016, respondent filed for divorce in the Istanbul 15th Family Court ("Turkish Family Court"), Case No. 2016/446. (Id. at 9). Respondent requested temporary custody of the children so she could travel with them out of the country; however, this request was denied. (Id. ). In July of 2016, respondent sought an ex parte protective order against petitioner from the Turkish Family Court, alleging that petitioner was not caring for the children, was harassing her with phone calls and messages, and was pressuring her to return to Gokceada from Istanbul. (Id. ). On July 11, 2016, the Turkish court issued a protective order, providing, inter alia , that petitioner not approach respondent's place of residence and cease communications with respondent. (Id. at 10; see also Ex. 6, Doc. 85–7). The protective order did not place any limits on petitioner's contact with the children. (Doc. 57, at 10). Petitioner appealed the Turkish protective order, but the appeal was rejected. (Id. ).
Over the course of the following months, petitioner attempted to meet with the children on multiple occasions. (See id. at 11). Contrary to petitioner's allegations, respondent invited petitioner to spend time with the children, however, respondent was not comfortable with petitioner having unsupervised access to the children. (See, e.g. , Ex. Y, Doc. 85–226). Specifically, respondent told petitioner multiple times that he may spend time with I.Y.L., but because petitioner had been absent from I.Y.L.'s life for an extended period and I.Y.L. was very young, petitioner was essentially a stranger to I.Y.L. (Id. ( )).
Respondent applied for United States passports for her children and on July 15, 2016, United States passports were issued to all three children. (Doc. 57, at 10). On August 11, 2016, petitioner filed an Answer to the divorce petition in the Turkish Family Court, requesting the Turkish Family Court deny respondent temporary custody...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velozny on behalf of R.V. v. Velozny
...fate of his two siblings, even if temporarily. It is even more undesirable to separate the three children. See Leonard v. Lentz , 297 F. Supp.3d 874 (N.D. Iowa 2017) ("To return only two siblings would be detrimental to all three."). Indeed, this Court refuses to do so, especially where the......
-
Rodriguez v. Molina
..."to return a child, despite the existence of a defense, if return would further the aims of the Convention." Leonard v. Lentz, 297 F. Supp. 3d 874, 890 (N.D. Iowa 2017) (quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1067 (6th Cir. 1996)).B. Grave Risk in General "General evidence of harm is......
-
Leonard v. Lentz, 17–CV–3037–CJW
...of the factual history of this case and will not repeat that discussion here. Leonard v. Lentz , 297 F.Supp.3d 874, –––– – ––––, No. 17-CV-3037-CJW, 2017 WL 6887535, at *1–4 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 1, 2017). Instead, the Court will provide an abbreviated discussion of the relevant facts. Petitioner......
- Murray v. 3M Co.