Texas Supreme Court Denies Frozen Embryo Case of Roman V. Roman

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider the case of a woman who wanted custody of three frozen embryos following her divorce.After her divorce from Randy Roman, Augusta Roman wanted to keep the embryos they had once hoped would bring children.

A Houston trial court had ordered the embryos turned over to Augusta Roman, but Randy Roman appealed that ruling and won. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court.

The court did not issue an opinion with the ruling on Roman vs. Roman.

After the Romans married, she got pregnant but miscarried. When she couldn’t get pregnant again, the couple sought help at a fertility clinic and eggs were extracted and fertilized with Randy Roman’s sperm.

On April 19, 2002, the night before the eggs were to be implanted, Randy Roman told her he couldn’t go through with it, giving her a list of complaints about their marriage, Augusta Roman has said.

With their marriage dissolving, they decided to freeze the embryos while trying to sort things out. But it wasn’t long before the divorce and court battle ensued.

A key piece of evidence was a consent form both signed on March 27, 2002, that said the embryos would be discarded in the case of divorce.

Augusta Roman said she had not yet heard about the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case. She referred questions to her attorney, who did not immediately return a phone call to The Associated Press on Friday night.

Source: AP

Sean’s Comments:  Obviously, Randy Roman is thrilled with the decision.  However, Augusta Roman has vowed to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.  We will wait and see if she wishes to drag this matter out to the highest court in the nation.  However, a mounting body of cases throughout the nation have proven again and again that this is a settled matter of law and Augusta may not implant the embryos and create children which Roman does not want.

3 Responses to Texas Supreme Court Denies Frozen Embryo Case of Roman V. Roman

  1. John Power says:

    We will be hearing more of the case, definitely.

  2. Charles says:

    How is it that the court (minus the discard clause) will side with Randy, however in a case where the natural method was used, we will side with the womans’ intention and ignore the man? If she is allowed to follow through with a pregnancy then he will be liable for child support. I am thinking that with the event leading up to now, she will make sure that he does “live up to his obligations”.

  3. Beth says:

    I disagree that “this is a settled matter of law.” The personhood of the unborn is continually being questioned and debated in the courts. Not only that, even now the courts treat the unborn differently in criminal and civil cases. It is only logical (not to mention “true”) that a person is a person regardless of the type of case being argued. It’s sad that the courts have not yet acknowledged this fact, which everybody already knows.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: