A surrogate mother has filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block a court ruling that grants parental rights to the California couple she carried the child for under a surrogacy agreement.
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency matters for the 9th Circuit, has not yet ruled on the request. The surrogate, McKenna West, an Alaska cardiac nurse, gave birth to a baby boy with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) in Texas on August 12. The condition involves an underdeveloped left side of the heart.
West is represented by attorneys who argue that a Los Angeles court’s decision declaring the California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed the legal parents has left her unable to advocate for the medically fragile newborn. The couple, who call the baby Rumi, had previously requested that West terminate the pregnancy after a 20-week ultrasound revealed the heart defect, according to court filings.
West refused the request, stating in filings that she could not abort "this precious baby" after feeling fetal movement and learning that treatment options were available. She offered to raise the child herself or facilitate an adoption if Gilkar and Ahmed no longer wished to parent the baby, while allowing them to withdraw from further financial obligations. West’s attorneys allege that continuing the pregnancy could have exposed her to financial penalties exceeding $250,000 under the surrogacy agreement’s terms.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the surrogacy contract, which included a provision allowing the intended parents to request termination in cases of serious fetal abnormalities. West contends that the provision was not legally enforceable and that her refusal to comply with the request was based on personal and ethical grounds. Gilkar and Ahmed have not publicly commented on the ongoing legal proceedings, and their legal representatives have not responded to requests for comment.
The baby, whom West refers to as Gabriel, remains in medical care in Texas. HLHS is a rare and serious condition requiring multiple surgeries and lifelong medical management. West’s legal team has argued that the child’s best interests are not being served by the current custody arrangement and that she is uniquely positioned to provide the necessary care and advocacy.
The emergency application to the Supreme Court seeks a temporary stay of the lower court’s ruling while the broader legal dispute over parental rights and the enforceability of the surrogacy agreement’s termination clause is resolved. No timeline has been provided for Kagan’s decision, which could come at any time or be deferred for further review by the full court.
Legal experts note that such emergency applications are rarely granted, particularly in cases involving complex family law disputes. The outcome could set a precedent for how surrogacy agreements are interpreted in future cases, particularly those involving medical conditions diagnosed during pregnancy.