<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="AOIBlog/2.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Divorced Couple Battling Over Embryos - MSNBC</title>
	<link>http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/2007/05/31/divorced-couple-battling-over-embryos-msnbc/</link>
	<description>Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu,  4 Dec 2008 01:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://attorneysonlineinc.com/?v=2.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: WOLFGANG DEMINO</title>
		<link>http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/2007/05/31/divorced-couple-battling-over-embryos-msnbc/#comment-16954</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/2007/05/31/divorced-couple-battling-over-embryos-msnbc/#comment-16954</guid>
					<description>The Texas courts that have so far dealt with the matter are not in agreement either. The appellate court disappproved of the award of the frozen embryos to the wife and reversed, finding that the trial court had abused its discretion in not enforcing the embryo agreement between the parties.

Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. filed)

The opinion of the First Court of Appeals, written by Justice Evelyn Keyes, can be found on the Texas Judicary web site at
http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=82705

The Cause No. in the Texas Supreme Court is  No. 06-0554.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27351

The Texas Supreme Court granted several extensions of time for briefing in the frozen embryo case, and has not yet decided whether to grant the petition for review (equivalent of cert.) in Roman v. Roman.

Respondent's brief was filed May 31, 2007. All briefs should be posted on the Texas Supreme Court's web site in due course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Texas courts that have so far dealt with the matter are not in agreement either. The appellate court disappproved of the award of the frozen embryos to the wife and reversed, finding that the trial court had abused its discretion in not enforcing the embryo agreement between the parties.</p>
<p>Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. filed)</p>
<p>The opinion of the First Court of Appeals, written by Justice Evelyn Keyes, can be found on the Texas Judicary web site at<br />
<a href='http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=82705' rel='nofollow'>http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=82705</a></p>
<p>The Cause No. in the Texas Supreme Court is  No. 06-0554.<br />
<a href='http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27351' rel='nofollow'>http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27351</a></p>
<p>The Texas Supreme Court granted several extensions of time for briefing in the frozen embryo case, and has not yet decided whether to grant the petition for review (equivalent of cert.) in Roman v. Roman.</p>
<p>Respondent&#8217;s brief was filed May 31, 2007. All briefs should be posted on the Texas Supreme Court&#8217;s web site in due course.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
