A surrogate mother who refused a request to abort a medically fragile newborn has filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to block a California court order granting custody to the biological parents.
On Sept. 9, McKenna West, the surrogate, filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to halt a July 27 California court decision that named Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the child, whom West calls Gabriel. The Texas-born infant, now four weeks old, has been receiving treatment in Dallas for hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening heart defect.
The petition comes after a Texas court ordered life-saving care for the baby on Aug. 11, one day before his birth. West’s attorneys argue that the biological parents opposed the court-ordered treatment and plan to remove the child from the Texas hospital for hospice care in California as early as Sept. 17, despite the condition being treatable. West seeks conservatorship to advocate for the baby’s medical needs and ensure he receives necessary surgeries.
Texas court grants California ruling full credit
On Sept. 2, a Texas court recognized the California judgment, according to West’s filing. Her attorneys claim the California Superior Court ruled in an expedited procedure that violated federal due process. The petition states that if the baby is removed from Texas, "the resulting harm cannot be redressed on later review if Baby G. does not live to see it."
West, a nurse from Alaska, gave birth to the child in Dallas on Aug. 12. The biological parents, who reside in Los Angeles, have not yet responded to the Supreme Court filing. Their attorney did not immediately provide comment when reached by CBS News.
Biological parents obtain restraining order against surrogate
Ahmed and Gilkar previously obtained a restraining order in Dallas preventing West from contacting the baby. During an Aug. 25 hearing, Gilkar described West as unstable and accused her of attempting to take their child. "He's our child," Gilkar testified, according to court records.
West’s attorneys assert that the couple’s prior request for an abortion at 23 weeks and their plan to transfer the baby to hospice care demonstrate a lack of commitment to lifesaving treatment. The infant underwent heart surgery shortly after birth and remains in critical condition, according to statements from the couple’s attorney in August.
Legal and policy context surrounding surrogacy and medical care
Surrogacy laws in the U.S. vary by state, with no federal regulation governing contracts or parental rights. The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case, and Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit, has not yet acted on the petition.
The dispute has drawn attention from Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocacy groups, who support West’s efforts to ensure the baby receives medical treatment. The Texas Attorney General’s office intervened before the birth, securing the court order requiring lifesaving care. Most abortions are banned in Texas, where the baby was born.
West has been barred from any contact with the child since the restraining order was issued. Her attorneys argue that she is uniquely positioned to advocate for the baby’s medical needs due to her nursing background and presence in Dallas during his treatment.
The biological parents have not publicly detailed their long-term care plans for the child beyond the planned transfer to California. Their attorney has not responded to requests for comment on the Supreme Court petition or the restraining order.