DALLAS — A bitter multistate dispute involving surrogacy, parental rights and the medical treatment of a critically ill baby has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where surrogate McKenna West is seeking emergency intervention after courts in California and Texas recognized the child’s genetic parents as his legal parents.
West filed an emergency application Sept. 9 asking the Supreme Court to halt enforcement of a California parentage judgment while she challenges whether California courts had jurisdiction over her. The dispute centers on the baby whom West calls Gabriel and his parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, call Rumi. The child was born Aug. 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital heart defect.
A Texas court gave effect to the California judgment on Sept. 2 and dismissed West from the Texas proceeding, according to her Supreme Court filing. California courts had previously recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents. West argues the California ruling should not have been enforced against her and wants the Supreme Court to intervene while she continues her legal challenge.
West has said her actions are primarily about ensuring the baby receives treatment. During an August court hearing, she said she believed the child had a meaningful chance of surviving despite the diagnosis. “I knew that this baby, despite the diagnosis, had a great chance at survival,” West told the court. She also indicated she could abandon her custody claim if satisfied that the parents were committed to the surgeries doctors considered necessary.
Gilkar has strongly rejected suggestions that she and her husband do not care about their son. During emotional testimony in Dallas, she told the court, “He’s our child,” while describing the couple’s anguish over the custody battle. Gilkar testified that she turned to surrogacy after eight unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization and a hysterectomy left her unable to carry a pregnancy herself.
The couple has also rejected West’s attempt to intervene in decisions about their son’s treatment. Their attorney, Lee Budner, said after the baby’s birth that he was receiving care from pediatric specialists and described West’s efforts to intervene in his medical care as having been rejected by the courts. Gilkar and Ahmed later authorized the first major heart operation performed on the child.
The controversy began after doctors diagnosed the fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome during West’s pregnancy. The intended parents considered terminating the pregnancy, while West ultimately refused to undergo the procedure. The disagreement later developed into a much wider fight over the baby’s medical treatment, custody and legal parentage. Gilkar has said she does not regret considering abortion following the diagnosis, while West maintains that continuing the pregnancy was the right decision.
The case has also divided advocates and legal specialists. Christine Andresen, an Austin attorney who specializes in surrogacy law, said the dispute raises a fundamental question about how far government should go in interfering with private family arrangements. “How much power do we give the state over our private families?” she said. Surrogacy specialists have warned that uncertainty over enforceable contracts and parental rights could make intended parents more reluctant to pursue surrogacy in Texas.
Anti-abortion organizations, meanwhile, have rallied behind West. Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, has questioned whether Gilkar and Ahmed should be trusted to make decisions about the baby’s treatment after they previously considered abortion. Live Action helped West travel from Alaska to Texas, while conservative legal organizations have also become involved in the dispute.
One of the most sensitive issues now before the courts concerns hospice care. West’s Supreme Court filing claims the child could potentially be taken to California and placed in hospice rather than undergo further surgery. Her lawyers cite that possibility as part of the reason emergency intervention is necessary. However, there is no independent confirmation that hospice care has been scheduled or that the parents have made a final decision to stop life-sustaining treatment.
The child’s medical condition makes the legal battle particularly urgent. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome prevents normal blood flow because the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped. The baby underwent surgery after birth and has remained seriously ill. Treatment often involves several operations, and even successful surgery does not necessarily cure the underlying condition.
The dispute also exposes broader gaps in American surrogacy law. The United States has no comprehensive federal system governing surrogacy agreements, leaving states to establish their own rules on contracts, parentage and the rights of gestational carriers. Legal experts say cases crossing several state boundaries can create conflicts over which state’s laws and court judgments should control.
For now, the Supreme Court has not declared West the child’s legal mother, awarded her custody or determined how the baby’s future medical care should be handled. Gilkar and Ahmed remain the legally recognized parents under the California judgment being enforced in Texas. West’s emergency application asks the nation’s highest court to intervene while she continues challenging that judgment, turning what began as a disagreement over a pregnancy into a broader debate over surrogacy, parental authority and the difficult choices surrounding the treatment of a seriously ill child.
