Surrogate who refused to have an abortion and gave birth to baby with severe health condition makes emergency plea to Supreme Court
McKenna West, a 28-year-old Texas surrogate who refused a requested abortion, has filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a custody dispute over the four-week-old baby she carried. The child, born with a serious heart defect, has remained with intended parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, but West argues they may withdraw life-saving treatment and wants custody or conservatorship rights reinstated after being dismissed from the underlying Texas case.
West's filing, submitted on Wednesday, seeks to block a California court order recognising Ahmed and Gilkar as the child's legal parents, claiming she was denied proper notice and due process. The baby, born on 12 August with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, underwent surgery in Texas, and West's lawyers fear he could be moved to California for hospice care by 17 September despite his condition being treatable. Ahmed and Gilkar, who turned to surrogacy after eight failed IVF rounds and a hysterectomy, previously obtained a restraining order against West and accuse her of breaching the surrogacy contract, which permitted termination in the event of fetal abnormalities; the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear the case, and the couple have not yet responded to the filing.
- Surrogate McKenna West asks Supreme Court to intervene in baby custody battle
- Baby has severe heart defect; parents may seek hospice care by 17 September
- West was dismissed from Texas case, lost standing over child's treatment
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for McKenna West's intervention argue that she carried this child to term specifically because she believed his heart condition was treatable and worth fighting for, giving her a direct moral stake in ensuring that commitment is honoured. They contend that being dismissed from the underlying case without adequate notice raises a genuine due process concern, and that any legal process determining a vulnerable newborn's custody and medical care should not proceed without the voice of the person who carried and delivered him. Given the urgency of a possible move to hospice care, they see her emergency appeal as a reasonable, time-sensitive safeguard rather than an overreach.
The case against
Advocates for Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar argue that they pursued surrogacy only after years of infertility treatment and a hysterectomy, entered into a clear contractual and legal process, and have already been recognised by a California court as the child's legal parents. They contend that surrogacy arrangements depend on finality and predictability, and that allowing a surrogate to reopen custody after birth, contrary to a contract that anticipated exactly this scenario, would undermine the legal certainty that makes such arrangements possible for intended parents. They also point to the restraining order and alleged contract breach as evidence that the courts already weighed the relevant facts before reaching their decision.