A California couple has filed a lawsuit against their surrogate, seeking more than $100,000 in damages, alleging she breached their surrogacy agreement by refusing to terminate the pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of a severe heart defect.
The lawsuit, filed weeks before the surrogate gave birth in Texas on August 12, centers on a dispute over the terms of the surrogacy contract and the surrogate’s decision to carry the child to term despite the parents’ request for an abortion.
Core Facts of the Dispute
The biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, allege that their surrogate, McKenna West, violated their agreement by refusing to abort the pregnancy after their unborn child was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a life-threatening congenital heart defect. The couple claims West breached the contract, which included provisions for termination in cases of fetal abnormalities, and caused them emotional distress.
West, who has denied any wrongdoing, is requesting the court dismiss the counterclaims. According to legal filings, the couple paid West $60,000 during the pregnancy under the surrogacy agreement. West later relocated to Texas to give birth, citing the state’s laws as a factor in her decision.
The Surrogacy Agreement and Medical Context
The surrogacy contract, as described in court documents, included a clause stating that the surrogate would terminate the pregnancy if requested by the intended parents in the event of a fetal abnormality. The agreement specified that termination could occur if a physician designated by the parents determined the condition was severe and the parents requested it in writing.
At approximately 20 weeks’ gestation, West was informed of the HLHS diagnosis. Gilkar and Ahmed allege they requested termination, but West refused. West has stated she acted in accordance with her personal and professional beliefs as a nurse.
Current Status and Legal Proceedings
The baby, named Rumi by Gilkar and Ahmed, was born on August 12 and is currently in their custody. West’s attorney has indicated she plans to pursue legal action to seek custody of the child. The lawsuit remains ongoing, with no court ruling issued as of the latest reports.
West has publicly stated she does not regret her decision, emphasizing her commitment to protecting the life of the child she carried. Gilkar and Ahmed have described the situation as causing them significant emotional distress, though they have not provided further details on their legal claims.
Broader Implications of Surrogacy Contracts
The case highlights ongoing debates over the enforceability of surrogacy contracts, particularly those involving medical decisions such as abortion. Legal experts note that such agreements are subject to state laws, which vary widely across the U.S. Texas, where the birth occurred, has restrictive abortion laws, which may have influenced West’s decision to relocate for the birth.
The dispute also raises questions about the rights and responsibilities of surrogates versus intended parents in cases of fetal abnormalities. While some surrogacy agreements explicitly address termination, others may leave such decisions to the discretion of the surrogate or medical professionals.
Reactions and Public Statements
Pro-life advocacy groups, including Live Action, have publicly supported West, condemning the lawsuit as an attempt to punish her for adhering to her beliefs. Lila Rose, president of Live Action, stated that the couple’s actions were an effort to coerce West into violating her principles.
West’s legal team has indicated she intends to fight the lawsuit, arguing that the contract’s termination clause was not legally enforceable in this context. The outcome of the case may set a precedent for future surrogacy agreements involving medical decisions.