The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a custody dispute involving a surrogate mother who gave birth to a baby boy with a life-threatening heart condition after refusing the intended parents' request for an abortion.
Justice Elena Kagan, who handles appeals from California, denied an emergency appeal filed by McKenna West, an Alaska nurse who sought to block a California court order recognizing Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the child. The brief order provided no explanation for the decision, as is typical in emergency appeals.
West, who named the child Gabriel, gave birth to the boy in Dallas, Texas, in August after fleeing California when Ahmed and Gilkar—who named the child Rumi—asked her to terminate the pregnancy upon learning of the diagnosis. The intended parents had signed a surrogacy agreement with West in 2025, which included a clause allowing for termination in cases of "fetal abnormality."
A California court had previously granted custody to Ahmed and Gilkar, who argued that West should not have legal standing to challenge the decision. West’s lawyers contended in their Supreme Court filing that the California ruling was erroneous and that she should retain custody to oversee the child’s medical care. They warned that without a stay, the parents could take the baby to California without ensuring necessary treatment, potentially endangering his life.
Attorneys for Ahmed and Gilkar responded that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter and that there was no emergency, as the parents had already committed to providing life-saving care. "We are truly grateful that Rumi can continue receiving the treatment he needs to survive," said Adam Wolf, an attorney for the couple, in a statement. West’s legal filings had spanned three jurisdictions and multiple state courts before reaching the Supreme Court.
The child, diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, underwent surgery in Texas and is now described as suffering from potential complications related to the procedure. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had previously intervened in the case, issuing an order requiring that the child receive lifesaving care in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court ruled last week that the child could be moved to California, where the parents had arranged for medical treatment.
West had argued in Texas courts that she should maintain custody under state law, as she gave birth to the child. However, a Texas judge ruled against her, and her subsequent appeals were rejected before she turned to the Supreme Court. The surrogacy agreement between West and the couple had stipulated conditions under which termination could be requested, but West refused to comply, citing personal and ethical objections.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the child in the custody of Ahmed and Gilkar, who have been providing medical care since his birth. The case has drawn attention to the intersection of surrogacy agreements, abortion laws, and medical decision-making for infants with complex health needs.