Dallas surrogate custody newborn needs ventilator after heart surgery
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
A custody battle over a critically ill newborn, born to a surrogate after his intended parents allegedly sought to terminate the pregnancy following a heart-defect diagnosis, has centred on a Dallas courtroom dispute over who controls his medical care. The baby, called Rumi by intended parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed and Gabriel by surrogate McKenna West, was diagnosed at around 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition that can be fatal within days or weeks if untreated. West, an Alaska cardiac nurse, refused the couple's request to end the pregnancy and travelled to Texas to give birth, later seeking sole conservatorship so she could direct his treatment, while Gilkar and Ahmed retained custody under a temporary restraining order.
Court filings said the newborn was placed back on a breathing tube and given a blood transfusion after his condition worsened overnight following a Norwood procedure, the first of three surgeries usually needed to treat the condition, carried out on 17 August after doctors confirmed his eligibility on 14 August. Gilkar and Ahmed maintained they had consented to the surgery and described sitting at their son's bedside as he struggled to breathe; West's lawyers said she would drop her custody claim if the court confirmed the couple were committed to his ongoing care. The medical dispute ran alongside a separate legal fight in which Gilkar and Ahmed sought more than $100,000 from West, alleging breach of their surrogacy agreement, after paying her $60,000 during the pregnancy under a contract that had addressed termination; West denied any wrongdoing.
- Dallas surrogacy custody fight centred on a baby with a severe heart defect
- Intended parents allegedly sought termination; surrogate refused and gave birth
- Baby needed re-intubation after heart surgery amid ongoing custody and contract disputes
New here? Start with this
Rumi, or Gabriel, is a newborn at the heart of a custody dispute in Dallas between his surrogate, McKenna West, and the couple who arranged the surrogacy, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed. He was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital heart condition, and the dispute centres on who has the legal right to make medical decisions for him.
West, a cardiac nurse from Alaska, says she was asked to end the pregnancy after the diagnosis was made at around 20 weeks, which she declined to do before travelling to Texas to give birth. She is now seeking sole custody, while Gilkar and Ahmed, who paid her $60,000 under their surrogacy agreement, say they have supported his medical care and are separately pursuing a financial claim against her.
The case matters because it raises difficult questions about parental rights and responsibilities in surrogacy arrangements, particularly when a baby is born with severe medical needs. The outcome could affect who is legally recognised as making decisions about the child's ongoing treatment.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Gilkar and Ahmed's supporters would argue that intended parents who commissioned the surrogacy, consented to the life-saving Norwood procedure, and entered a legal agreement establishing their parental rights should retain medical decision-making authority for their son, especially as they maintain they never abandoned him and are actively engaged in his treatment. They would emphasise that surrogacy contracts exist precisely to provide legal certainty in fraught circumstances like this, and that allowing a surrogate to override those terms after birth, however well-intentioned, risks undermining the enforceability of agreements that many families rely on.
The case against
West's supporters would argue that a surrogate who carried a critically ill baby to term against alleged pressure to terminate, and who has direct clinical expertise as a cardiac nurse, has demonstrated a depth of commitment and practical competence that warrants a protective role in his care while his medical situation remains so precarious. They would stress that her stated willingness to relinquish her claim once reassured of the couple's dedication shows her aim is the child's welfare rather than permanent custody, and that courts should be cautious about medical authority resting solely with parties whose commitment has been called into question.
Full account
A Texas court has heard emotional testimony in a bitter dispute over a critically ill newborn born through a surrogacy arrangement that broke down after the child was diagnosed with a serious heart defect. Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, the intended parents, engaged 28-year-old Alaska-based cardiac nurse McKenna West to carry their child after Gilkar underwent eight unsuccessful cycles of IVF and subsequently had a hysterectomy. Gilkar told a Dallas courtroom on Tuesday that surrogacy had been the couple's only route to parenthood, and became visibly distressed while giving evidence, prompting a brief recess. The case has drawn wide attention partly because of a dispute over what to call the baby: his intended parents refer to him as Rumi, while West calls him Gabriel.
At around the 20-week mark of the pregnancy, scans revealed the baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a severe congenital defect in which one side of the heart fails to develop properly, disrupting normal blood flow and proving fatal within days or weeks if untreated. Gilkar has acknowledged that she and her husband asked West to end the pregnancy in light of the diagnosis, pointing to a clause in the surrogacy contract that allowed for termination in the event of foetal abnormalities. West declined, and rather than continue the arrangement in Alaska, she travelled to Texas — reportedly without the couple's consent — to give birth. The intended parents dispute her characterisation of events, maintaining they never withheld or intended to withhold medical treatment from the child.
The baby was born on 12 August and required resuscitation almost immediately, with Gilkar recalling in court that he stopped breathing after a feeding tube dislodged and that a hospital chaplain was summoned. He subsequently underwent genetic testing, blood work and cardiac imaging ahead of the Norwood procedure, the first of three open-heart operations typically used to treat HLHS. According to the intended parents' legal team, the operation was delayed because West had not undergone an amniocentesis test during pregnancy that would have confirmed whether the baby was a suitable candidate for surgery. Doctors ultimately cleared him for the operation on 14 August, and the two-day Norwood procedure was carried out on 17 August, with his condition described at the time as critical but stable enough to proceed.
The newborn's recovery has since faltered: court filings say his breathing worsened overnight following the surgery, requiring him to be placed back on a ventilator, and that he has also needed a blood transfusion. Gilkar told the court the couple has remained at his bedside throughout, describing him as suffering greatly and insisting West is attempting to take him from them, while West is petitioning the same Texas court for sole conservatorship that would hand her authority over his medical care. A judge has kept a temporary restraining order against West in place and indicated a fuller ruling will follow within a fortnight. The two main accounts of the saga diverge sharply in focus: coverage built around the parents' courtroom testimony dwells on their years of infertility struggles and the newborn's frightening first days, whereas reporting drawing on legal filings and West's own claims — including her allegation that the baby was taken from her moments after delivery — gives more weight to the medical timeline and the parents' lawyer's rebuttal that they consented fully to his treatment.
Where outlets differ
The Daily Mail-style account centres on courtroom testimony from Gilkar, emphasising the couple's infertility history, her emotional breakdown on the stand, and details of the birth and resuscitation; it frames the dispute mainly through the parents' perspective and notes the 14-day timeline for the judge's restraining-order ruling.
The Fox News/TMZ-sourced account places more emphasis on the surrogate McKenna West's competing claims — including her allegation the baby was 'ripped away' within 60 seconds of birth and her use of the name Gabriel — and includes the parents' lawyer (Budner) directly disputing West's version of events regarding consent for surgery.
Only the second source specifies the precise dates doctors cleared the baby for surgery (14 August) and when the Norwood procedure was performed (17 August), and reports the post-surgical relapse requiring re-intubation and a blood transfusion.
The two sources differ on sourcing: one draws on direct court observation of testimony, the other cites court filings, TMZ-obtained documents and Associated Press courtroom reporting.