A surrogate who refused to terminate a pregnancy after the unborn baby was diagnosed with a serious heart condition has now begun an extraordinary legal fight for parental rights—but one reproductive-law expert says she has virtually no claim to the child.
McKenna West, an Alaskan nurse and single mother of two, delivered the baby boy Wednesday in Dallas after crossing state lines amid a rapidly escalating dispute with the child’s biological parents, California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.
West called the baby Gabriel. His biological parents reportedly named him Rumi.
Follow @allchronologyLess than 24 hours after his birth, the newborn was placed in Gilkar and Ahmed’s custody. A separate court order currently prevents West from seeing him.
Despite that setback, West’s attorney, Lincoln Wilson, says she intends to pursue custody and could take the case as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.
“She is seeking parentage of the child because she gave birth in Texas, and in Texas, if you give birth to a child, it’s your child,” Wilson told the New York Post.
But reproductive attorney Marla Neufeld believes West’s legal argument faces almost insurmountable obstacles.
“I don’t see any reason why these biological parents wouldn’t still be the legal parents of this child,” said Neufeld, a Florida-based lawyer who hosts “The Surrogacy Space” podcast.
At the center of the conflict is the distinction between bodily autonomy during pregnancy and parental rights after birth.
The dispute began when the baby was diagnosed at approximately 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS. The rare congenital condition leaves the left side of the heart severely underdeveloped. Babies born with HLHS generally require intensive medical intervention and surgery shortly after birth.
The couple’s surrogacy agreement reportedly contained a provision allowing the intended parents to request an abortion if doctors discovered a fetal anomaly.
Gilkar and Ahmed alleged in court filings that West initially agreed to terminate the pregnancy before changing her mind. West, however, has claimed that the couple tried to force her to undergo an abortion—an allegation they deny.
Neufeld emphasized that no surrogacy contract could compel West to have the procedure.
“At the end of the day … the surrogate has decision-making authority for her body,” the attorney explained. “There’s no judge that’s gonna make her have an abortion or stop her.”
But the surrogate’s right to continue the pregnancy does not automatically establish a right to keep the child after delivery.
“That’s a totally separate issue from their parental rights,” Neufeld said.
Gilkar and Ahmed ultimately decided to proceed with the birth and reportedly wanted West to deliver in California, where they had arranged for the baby’s continuing treatment. West instead traveled to Texas, apparently believing state law would recognize her as the child’s mother because she gave birth there.
A California court had already ruled, however, that Gilkar and Ahmed were the baby’s legal parents. Parentage orders are commonly used in surrogacy arrangements to establish intended parenthood regardless of where the birth occurs.
West is not genetically related to the infant.
“She is not the biological parent,” Neufeld said, adding that she knew of no relevant surrogacy provision in Alaska, California or Texas that would automatically give West access to the child.
“I don’t see a world where [West] has rights to the baby,” she said.
The case became even more complicated when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened shortly before the birth. His office asked a court to require doctors to provide life-saving treatment and prevent the newborn from being removed from Texas.
A judge granted that request Tuesday.
The child was reportedly receiving care from pediatric specialists as of Thursday. Attorney Lee Budner, who represents Gilkar and Ahmed, said the parents would put their baby’s health first and follow the recommendations of his medical team.
Budner also said the couple was devastated that an intensely personal medical and family crisis had become a public political battle.
Meanwhile, West’s legal team appears determined to challenge the existing parentage ruling. Her prospects may depend on how courts reconcile the California order, Texas law and the original surrogacy agreement.
Neufeld described West’s position as legally unfounded, although she acknowledged that the case is highly unusual.
The immediate priority, she said, should be the infant’s survival and continuing medical treatment. HLHS typically requires multiple surgeries and years of specialized care, placing enormous emotional and financial responsibilities on the parents.
The controversy could eventually reach beyond this family.
Follow @allchronologyNeufeld said lawmakers may examine whether surrogacy statutes need additional safeguards, including mandatory mental-health screenings and independent lawyers for surrogates and intended parents. Some states still lack comprehensive surrogacy laws, leaving complex disputes to be resolved through contracts and competing court orders.
Gilkar and Ahmed are suing West, and the parties are scheduled to appear in a Dallas County court on Aug. 25.
Until then, one central distinction will dominate the case: West had the right to decide what happened to her body during the pregnancy, but that does not necessarily make her the child’s legal mother.
The final outcome remains for the courts to determine. For now, the biological parents have custody, West remains separated from the baby she delivered, and a medically fragile newborn lies at the center of a legal battle that could reshape the future of American surrogacy.
