In Leonard v Lentz, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2019 WL 181185
(Mem) (8th Cir., 2019) Ozgur Leonard, a dual citizen of
Turkey and the United States, claimed that Rachel Lentz, a United States
citizen, had wrongfully removed the couple’s three minor children, I.Y.L.,
E.M.L., and S.M.L, to the United States, and he sought the return of the
children to the Republic of Turkey. Lentz denied having taken any wrongful
action. As an affirmative defense, she asserted, inter alia, that E.M.L., who
had been born with End Stage Renal
Disease and needed a kidney transplant,
required a much more advanced treatment facility and medical team than Turkey
could provide; and that returning the children to Turkey would create a grave
risk that they would suffer some physical or psychological harm, or place them
in an intolerable situation.
The district court concluded that
Leonard had established a prima facie case for wrongful removal.. The district
court further determined, however, that Lentz had established the grave risk
exception to removal, finding, as relevant, that the evidence, particularly
testimony provided by E.M.L.’s doctors at the University of Iowa Health Care
(UIHC), showed that ordering E.M.L. to be returned at that time would pose a
grave risk to her physical health, and that E.M.L. would need to remain in
close proximity to UIHC for the duration of her post-transplant recovery.
Accordingly, the court denied Leonard’s request to return the children to
Turkey. Just weeks after E.M.L. received a kidney transplant
from Lentz, Leonard asked the court to reconsider its decision and, as
relevant, to “order the return of the [c]hildren contingent on a future medical
‘release’ by [E.M.L’s nephrologist] stating [she was] satisfied that E.M.L’s
further care [could] be provided in Turkey.” The district court found that the
issue of whether E.M.L. could be returned to Turkey post-transplant was not
ripe for consideration.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgement. It rejected Leonards
argument that, inter alia, that the district court improperly denied his
request to return the children to Turkey because the transplant had already
occurred and because there was no evidence before the district court
demonstrating that Turkish medical facilities were unable to provide adequate
post-transplant care. It agreed
that the issue was not ripe for consideration, as the record contained neither
evidence that E.M.L. had reached the point in her recovery where her medical
team was prepared to release her nor evidence establishing the point at which
post-transplant return to Turkey would be safe for E.M.L. See Parrish v. Dayton, 761 F.3d 873, 875 (8th Cir. 2014)
(ripeness is reviewed de novo; “[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it
rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or
indeed may not occur at all”).
