Embattled Dad in Texas Frozen Embryo Case Is Finally Free of Ex's Legal Harassment

Glenn Sacks
Embattled Dad in Texas Frozen Embryo Case Is Finally Free of Ex's Legal
Harassment
April 9, 2008 at 9:22 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

In the highly-publicized Roman v. Roman Texas frozen embryo case, Augusta
Roman and her then-husband Randy Roman had tried for several years to have a
child (and had one miscarriage) before undergoing infertility treatments.
The day before the embryos were to be implanted, Randy told her that he was
troubled by certain aspects of their relationship and wanted to wait to
implant the embryos until they had resolved their problems. They went to
counseling for six months and later divorced.

Augusta, 47, still wants to have the children, and Randy has refused. While
undergoing the infertility treatments they had both signed a form which
clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be
implanted.

The original trial judge in their divorce granted Augusta custody of the
frozen embryos. Randy appealed the case, and in February the Texas Court of
Appeal sided with him. Augusta and her attorney Rebecca Reitz appealed the
case to the Texas Supreme Court, which requested briefs.

My belief is that while it is unfortunate for Augusta Roman that she will
never have a biological child, two people create a child, not one. Neither
should be compelled to do so against their will.

Recently I was pleased to hear that the United States Supreme Court, like
the Texas Supreme Court, has refused to hear Augusta Roman's appeal. Their
decision is here. This means that Randy is finally, finally rid of this and
can move on with his life.

To learn more about the case, watch my debate with Augusta Roman and her
attorney on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet
(pictured) by clicking here.

Also, see my co-authored column Texas Frozen Embryo case--In Defense of a
Man's Right to Choose (Houston Chronicle, 6/14/07, Baltimore Sun, 6/17/07).

I had the pleasure of having lunch with Randy in December--he's a nice guy,
and hardly the villain Augusta makes him out to be.

---------------------------------------------------------



No. 07-926
Title: Augusta N. Roman, Petitioner
v.
Randy M. Roman

Docketed: January 14, 2008
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
Case Nos.: (01-04-00541-CV)
Decision Date: February 9, 2006
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: August 24, 2007
Rehearing Denied: October 12, 2007

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 9 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due
February 13, 2008)
Feb 8 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Viciki Schnell, et al. to
respond filed.
Feb 13 2008 Brief of respondent Randy M. Roman in opposition filed.
Feb 25 2008 Reply of petitioner Augusta N. Roman filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 14, 2008.
Mar 17 2008 Petition DENIED.

I'm surprised.
It all seemed like a no-brainer to me to start with.
If a mother can choose to kill an embryo why can't a father, especially
since in this case it does not involve the mother's body?
That this even made it to be heard by the very first court is unreal.
Abortion on demand is legal, it just so happened that the father decided
to abort it and that it took so long and went through so many hearings
leads to the inescapable conclusion that women are special in regards to
the law.

Even just the stipulation about not implanting them in the event of
divorce is pretty obvious as to meaning and should never have made it
past the very first hearing by the very first judge. Obviously, men
aren't treated the same in court (not that we all didn't already know
that).
Phil #3


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
Glenn Sacks
Embattled Dad in Texas Frozen Embryo Case Is Finally Free of Ex's
Legal Harassment
April 9, 2008 at 9:22 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

In the highly-publicized Roman v. Roman Texas frozen embryo case,
Augusta Roman and her then-husband Randy Roman had tried for several
years to have a child (and had one miscarriage) before undergoing
infertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be
implanted, Randy told her that he was troubled by certain aspects of
their relationship and wanted to wait to implant the embryos until
they had resolved their problems. They went to counseling for six
months and later divorced.

Augusta, 47, still wants to have the children, and Randy has refused.
While undergoing the infertility treatments they had both signed a
form which clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos
would not be implanted.

The original trial judge in their divorce granted Augusta custody of
the frozen embryos. Randy appealed the case, and in February the Texas
Court of Appeal sided with him. Augusta and her attorney Rebecca Reitz
appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court, which requested briefs.

My belief is that while it is unfortunate for Augusta Roman that she
will never have a biological child, two people create a child, not
one. Neither should be compelled to do so against their will.

Recently I was pleased to hear that the United States Supreme Court,
like the Texas Supreme Court, has refused to hear Augusta Roman's
appeal. Their decision is here. This means that Randy is finally,
finally rid of this and can move on with his life.

To learn more about the case, watch my debate with Augusta Roman and
her attorney on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and
Juliet (pictured) by clicking here.

Also, see my co-authored column Texas Frozen Embryo case--In Defense
of a Man's Right to Choose (Houston Chronicle, 6/14/07, Baltimore Sun,
6/17/07).

I had the pleasure of having lunch with Randy in December--he's a nice
guy, and hardly the villain Augusta makes him out to be.

---------------------------------------------------------



No. 07-926
Title: Augusta N. Roman, Petitioner
v.
Randy M. Roman

Docketed: January 14, 2008
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
Case Nos.: (01-04-00541-CV)
Decision Date: February 9, 2006
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: August 24, 2007
Rehearing Denied: October 12, 2007

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 9 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due
February 13, 2008)
Feb 8 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Viciki Schnell, et al.
to respond filed.
Feb 13 2008 Brief of respondent Randy M. Roman in opposition
filed.
Feb 25 2008 Reply of petitioner Augusta N. Roman filed.
(Distributed)
Feb 27 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 14, 2008.
Mar 17 2008 Petition DENIED.

"Phil" wrote in message
news
I'm surprised.
It all seemed like a no-brainer to me to start with.
If a mother can choose to kill an embryo why can't a father, especially
since in this case it does not involve the mother's body?
That this even made it to be heard by the very first court is unreal.
Abortion on demand is legal, it just so happened that the father decided
to abort it and that it took so long and went through so many hearings
leads to the inescapable conclusion that women are special in regards to
the law.

Even just the stipulation about not implanting them in the event of
divorce is pretty obvious as to meaning and should never have made it past
the very first hearing by the very first judge. Obviously, men aren't
treated the same in court (not that we all didn't already know that).
Phil #3

No no, Phil, it was the wanna-be Mom that fought the lower courts decision
not to proceed. Not the ex-husband. He was the one that wanted the
eggs/embryos destroyed.

The lower court actually had paid attention to the couple's pre-divorce
agreement and let commonsense rule the day. But that wasn't good enough for
the wanna-be Wallet Leach, she wanted to have them all, called them her
"babies", too.

She's been making the talk show circuit, bad mouthing Randy at every turn.
But she's run out of steam for her pity party fairly quickly. People have
caught on that she's a pretty sick inDUHvidual and that her X isn't the
monster she's made him out to be.

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Phil" wrote in message
news
I'm surprised.
It all seemed like a no-brainer to me to start with.
If a mother can choose to kill an embryo why can't a father,
especially since in this case it does not involve the mother's body?
That this even made it to be heard by the very first court is unreal.
Abortion on demand is legal, it just so happened that the father
decided to abort it and that it took so long and went through so many
hearings leads to the inescapable conclusion that women are special
in regards to the law.

Even just the stipulation about not implanting them in the event of
divorce is pretty obvious as to meaning and should never have made it
past the very first hearing by the very first judge. Obviously, men
aren't treated the same in court (not that we all didn't already know
that).
Phil #3

No no, Phil, it was the wanna-be Mom that fought the lower courts
decision not to proceed. Not the ex-husband. He was the one that
wanted the eggs/embryos destroyed.

I guess I didn't word it correctly, I apoligize. I was trying to draw a
distinction between a pregnant mother being allowed to destroy an embryo
and this case, where the father wanted to destroy them. Since neither's
body was involved in the process of destroying the embryos, his decision
should be just a sacrosanct as hers would have been had this been the
case of typical abortion on demand.
I mean the argument for abortion on demand being withheld from fathers
is that it is HER body that is involved in the pregnancy. Here, there is
no parent's body involved in destroying the embryo so either has, or
should have, equal standing before the law.
I'm just happily surprised that the Supreme Courts of Texas and the US
didn't overturn it and allowed the appeals court's ruling to stand.
Phil #3



The lower court actually had paid attention to the couple's
pre-divorce agreement and let commonsense rule the day. But that
wasn't good enough for the wanna-be Wallet Leach, she wanted to have
them all, called them her "babies", too.

She's been making the talk show circuit, bad mouthing Randy at every
turn. But she's run out of steam for her pity party fairly quickly.
People have caught on that she's a pretty sick inDUHvidual and that
her X isn't the monster she's made him out to be.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Phil" wrote in message
news
I'm surprised.
It all seemed like a no-brainer to me to start with.
If a mother can choose to kill an embryo why can't a father,
especially since in this case it does not involve the mother's body?
That this even made it to be heard by the very first court is unreal.
Abortion on demand is legal, it just so happened that the father
decided to abort it and that it took so long and went through so many
hearings leads to the inescapable conclusion that women are special
in regards to the law.

Even just the stipulation about not implanting them in the event of
divorce is pretty obvious as to meaning and should never have made it
past the very first hearing by the very first judge. Obviously, men
aren't treated the same in court (not that we all didn't already know
that).
Phil #3

No no, Phil, it was the wanna-be Mom that fought the lower courts
decision not to proceed. Not the ex-husband. He was the one that
wanted the eggs/embryos destroyed.

I guess I didn't word it correctly, I apoligize. I was trying to draw a
distinction between a pregnant mother being allowed to destroy an embryo
and this case, where the father wanted to destroy them. Since neither's
body was involved in the process of destroying the embryos, his decision
should be just a sacrosanct as hers would have been had this been the
case of typical abortion on demand.
I mean the argument for abortion on demand being withheld from fathers
is that it is HER body that is involved in the pregnancy. Here, there is
no parent's body involved in destroying the embryo so either has, or
should have, equal standing before the law.
I'm just happily surprised that the Supreme Courts of Texas and the US
didn't overturn it and allowed the appeals court's ruling to stand.
Phil #3

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the original judge was
just another maggot bent on ripping off this man BECAUSE he is a man. In
fact, the connection can be made by most second graders. Why the appeals
court reversed the decision is indeed baffling since courts in general are
run by insane people.




The lower court actually had paid attention to the couple's
pre-divorce agreement and let commonsense rule the day. But that
wasn't good enough for the wanna-be Wallet Leach, she wanted to have
them all, called them her "babies", too.

She's been making the talk show circuit, bad mouthing Randy at every
turn. But she's run out of steam for her pity party fairly quickly.
People have caught on that she's a pretty sick inDUHvidual and that
her X isn't the monster she's made him out to be.