A gestational surrogate threatened with a $250,000 lawsuit after refusing the intended parents' request to terminate her pregnancy is now fighting for custody of the child in Texas. McKenna West gave birth to the baby boy on Wednesday, 12 August, but her lawyer later said she was not allowed to have contact with the infant after the birth.
The news came after a multi-state legal dispute that began when the unborn child was diagnosed with a severe heart condition about 20 weeks into the pregnancy. For context, the California-based intended and genetic parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, cited a clause in their surrogacy contract.
The diagnosis led the couple to seek a termination under a provision addressing serious fetal abnormalities. When West refused to comply, she says Gilkar and Ahmed threatened to sue her for $250,000 (about £185,000) for breaching the surrogacy agreement. West later travelled from Alaska to Texas, saying she chose the state because abortion is largely banned there.
Intended Parents Seek Termination After Medical Diagnosis
The timeline starts in February 2025. West, a registered nurse from Alaska, applied to be a surrogate through Worldwide Surrogacy. She took on the surrogacy role to make extra income for her family.
By August 2025, she signed a formal surrogacy agreement with Gilkar and Ahmed, who are from California. According to West, the document she signed contained a provision addressing termination in cases involving serious fetal abnormalities.
In early 2026, West successfully became pregnant through in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, during her 20-week scan, West, Ahmed and Gilkar learned that the unborn baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
The condition, referred to as HLHS, is a serious congenital heart defect in which structures on the left side of the heart are severely underdeveloped. The condition is life-threatening but can be treated through a series of surgeries, although some patients may eventually require a heart transplant. Babies with HLHS typically require medical intervention shortly after birth.
Legal filings by the couple's lawyers state that after consultations with medical providers and research into the prognosis and quality-of-life implications associated with HLHS, the intended parents made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy. The filings state that it is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment.
However, the Alaska nurse subsequently changed her mind. She told Live Action News she did not want to undergo an abortion and did not want the baby's life to be cut short. When she firmly refused the procedure, the situation escalated rapidly. West said the couple threatened to sue her for $250,000 (£185,000) for allegedly breaching the agreement.
Alaskan Surrogate Relocates To Texas Amid Dispute
By 20 July 2026, communication between the parties had broken down. Gilkar and Ahmed argued in legal filings that West cut off all contact with them.
They claimed she deliberately withdrew medical releases, preventing them from contacting her medical providers to get critical health updates. West disputes the intended parents' broader account of the dispute.
West travelled from Alaska to Texas, saying she chose the state because abortion is generally prohibited there. Meanwhile, a California court issued a pre-birth parentage order recognising Ahmed and Gilkar as the child's legal parents.
On 28 July, an Alaska Superior Court reviewed the case and rejected a request to force West to relocate to California to give birth. However, the court concluded that California was the appropriate jurisdiction for the surrogacy dispute.
Texas Attorney General Intervenes in Surrogacy Case
On 11 August, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the dispute, and a Dallas County judge issued an emergency order requiring UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Medical Center Dallas to provide medically necessary, life-sustaining care following the child's birth. Paxton and West both publicly refer to the child as Gabriel. The court also restricted the child's removal from Texas pending further proceedings.
A separate order restricted West from making medical decisions for the child, taking possession of him or representing herself as his parent or guardian. Ahmed and Gilkar have strongly denied claims that they intended to deny their son medical treatment after birth.
The child arrived on Wednesday, 12 August. The baby boy was born in the morning in Texas and immediately began receiving specialised treatment for HLHS. The parties use different names for the child. While West continues to refer to the baby as Gabriel, Ahmed and Gilkar refer to their son as Rumi.
Lawyers Clash Over Original Surrogacy Agreement Terms
On 13 August, attorneys representing both parties spoke out regarding the ongoing legal situation. West's attorney, Lincoln Davis Wilson, said West was not allowed to have any contact with the baby after the birth. He said his team intends to challenge the existing parentage orders and seek custody.
He stated, 'We are working on challenging those orders of parentage because we think that Texas law makes a woman who gives birth to a child, the mother of the child.' He added plainly, 'She is the mother.'
Wilson went on to compare the surrogacy contract his client signed to a 'hitman contract' because of its termination provision. He argued that some contracts are unenforceable as a matter of public policy and maintained that a woman's right to obtain an abortion must also include the right to refuse one.
The intended parents' attorney, Richard B. Budner, gave a different account of the dispute. He said, 'Our clients' son was born yesterday morning and he is now in their physical custody while he receives expert medical care at a tertiary care center.' He added, 'Thankfully, McKenna West's baseless attempt to interfere with his medical care has been soundly rejected by the courts.'
Parties Scheduled to Appear in Texas Court
Budner said the couple's focus remained on ensuring their son received the medical treatment he needed. He said his clients would continue to follow the recommendations of the child's medical team and accused West and Paxton of turning the family's situation into 'political theater.'
The baby remains in the couple's physical custody while receiving expert medical care at a Dallas hospital. The legal dispute, however, remains unresolved, with further court proceedings expected later this month. A hearing is currently scheduled for 25 August.
Neither the existing California parentage order nor the Texas proceedings have yet resolved West's broader attempt to establish parental rights over the child.
