Infertility treatments are not easy. They can take years, require daily hormone injections, and can become extremely costly. For one Texas couple, their quest to have children eventually highlighted the trouble in their marriage. After their fertility doctor called to announce the successful creation of embryos, Randy Roman decided that he could not go through with the procedure. While he and his wife Augusta worked out their problems, they agreed to freeze the embryos.
Although the couple went to marriage counseling, it didn't work. In 2003 they filed for divorce, 16 months after the embryos had been created. They divided up property like any other couple-- she got the house, he got the big screen TV. The one thing the couple could not agree on was the fate of the frozen embryos.
The couple signed a form when they froze the embryos that gave the clinic permission to destroy the embryos if/when the couple divorced. Augusta, however, wanted to take custody of the embryos and have them implanted while releasing her ex-husband of all parental (and financial) responsibilities. Randy, however, said that he could not disavow his genetic off-spring, not matter what his relationship is with their mother. The Los Angeles Times explains that most states consider embryos to be property with the potential for human life, not a human life which needs to be placed in one parents custody.
Many couples split up without any clear agreement about the fate of their un-implanted embryos. Further complicating the situation is that there is, as yet, no federal precedent for settling such disputes. The Los Angeles Times says:
To date, the top courts of six states have ruled in such cases. While the case particulars have varied, a trend has emerged. In general, the courts have held that the right of one ex-spouse to not procreate trumps that of the other to procreate.
As these kinds of court disputes become more and more common, there is a good chance that one will eventually come before the Supreme Court. In the controversial Roe v. Wade decision the Justices avoided deciding when life began. Augusta claims that she feels that she was already pregnant and that the embryos are her only chance for children. Her ex-husband's lawyer says that defaulting embryo custody to the mother reduces men to the role of sperm donors in in-vitro fertilization and if his wife is allowed to have his children, he would not want to be forced out of their life.
Both Randy and Augusta have filed briefs with the Texas Supreme Court.
Comments