Surrogate asks Supreme Court to intervene in custody battle over medically fragile newborn

McKenna West is challenging rulings recognizing a California couple as the child’s legal parents after she refused their request to end the pregnancy.

An Alaska surrogate has taken a bitter custody dispute involving a medically fragile newborn to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that she should be allowed to have a say in the child’s care after refusing the California couple’s request to terminate the pregnancy.

According to CNN, McKenna West filed an emergency application Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to halt a California court ruling that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the child’s legal parents.

The Texas Tribune reported Thursday that the filing came after a Dallas judge rejected West’s effort to obtain custody of the baby, whom West calls Gabriel while the couple calls him Rumi.

The baby was born Aug. 12 in Dallas with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital condition in which the left side of the heart is underdeveloped. Court documents say the condition can be treated with a series of major procedures, including the Norwood operation and subsequent surgeries.

The dispute began during West’s pregnancy after the diagnosis. According to court filings, the intended parents asked West to end the pregnancy, while West opposed an abortion and ultimately traveled from Alaska to Texas before giving birth.

West now argues that the couple could choose hospice care rather than further potentially life-saving treatment. That is an allegation made in her Supreme Court filing, not a confirmed decision by Ahmed and Gilkar. Their attorneys have previously maintained that West breached the surrogacy agreement and have sought to prevent her from seeing or making decisions for the child.

A Texas court has upheld the California judgment recognizing Ahmed and Gilkar as the parents. West’s emergency application asks the Supreme Court to intervene before the dispute becomes moot and to restore her ability to advocate for the child.

The case has attracted attention from anti-abortion organizations and Republican officials, turning what began as a private surrogacy disagreement into a broader debate over abortion, parental rights and the legal status of surrogates across state lines.

But the Supreme Court is not required to take the case. Legal experts said emergency intervention in a family dispute would be unusual, making the outcome uncertain.

For now, the newborn remains at the center of a legal battle spanning California, Texas and Alaska, with the courts yet to settle who has authority over his future care.