Baby in center of surrogacy saga is in critical condition after complex heart surgery as biological parents demand restraining order against birth mom
A baby at the centre of a high-profile US surrogacy dispute is in a critical condition after undergoing complex open-heart surgery, according to court documents. The child, born on 12 August in Dallas, Texas, to Alaskan surrogate McKenna West, was diagnosed in the womb with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening defect that can be fatal within days or weeks without treatment, and the case has become entangled in a bitter custody and legal battle between West and the baby's biological parents.
The biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, say the baby's condition deteriorated significantly in the 24 hours after the Norwood Procedure, requiring re-intubation, and have asked the court to postpone a hearing scheduled for Tuesday at which they intended to seek a restraining order against West. The couple, who have been granted custody, are also suing West for over $100,000, alleging she breached a surrogacy contract requiring termination in the event of a foetal "anomaly" by refusing an abortion and travelling to Texas, where state law offered the baby greater protection. West has since filed for custody of the child herself.
- Surrogate-born baby with heart defect critical after major surgery.
- Biological parents seek restraining order, delay hearing amid crisis.
- Dispute stems from surrogate's refusal to abort after diagnosis.
New here? Start with this
Surrogacy arrangements typically involve a contract in which a surrogate carries a pregnancy on behalf of intended parents, who are usually the baby's biological parents through egg or sperm donation. These contracts often set out conditions for various circumstances, including what should happen if serious medical problems are detected during the pregnancy. Disputes can arise when a surrogate and the intended parents disagree on how to proceed, and, because surrogacy and abortion laws differ significantly between US states, decisions about where a baby is born can carry legal weight.
The case involves McKenna West, a surrogate from Alaska, and Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, a couple from California who are the baby's intended and biological parents. The baby was found to have a serious heart condition before birth, and a disagreement over how to handle that diagnosis led to a legal dispute between West and the couple over custody and the terms of their surrogacy agreement.
The case has drawn wide attention because it touches on sensitive and contested issues, including reproductive rights, the enforceability of surrogacy contracts, and how state laws on abortion can affect decisions made during a pregnancy. It also raises questions about who has legal standing to make decisions for a child when a surrogate and biological parents are in conflict, particularly where the child's health is at serious risk.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Gilkar and Ahmed's position argue that surrogacy contracts exist precisely to give intended parents legal certainty over a pregnancy they have commissioned, often at great emotional and financial cost, and that a surrogate who knowingly agrees to specific terms, including provisions addressing serious fetal anomalies, should be bound by that agreement like any other contracting party. They contend that travelling to a state with different legal protections in order to sidestep the agreed terms amounts to a unilateral rewriting of the arrangement that leaves the intended parents legally and emotionally exposed, and that seeking a restraining order is a reasonable step for parents trying to focus on their critically ill child's care without further conflict.
The case against
Those sympathetic to West's position argue that no contract can or should compel a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy against her wishes, since bodily autonomy and decisions about one's own body cannot reasonably be signed away in advance, however clearly worded the agreement. They note that she carried the pregnancy to term in the belief she was protecting the child's life, and that having formed a bond through pregnancy and birth, her wish to seek custody or contest the parents' actions reflects what she may sincerely see as a maternal and moral claim, particularly given the gravity and uncertainty of the diagnosis involved.