Surrogate, intended parents clash over care for unborn baby with serious heart condition

A Texas judge has ordered that the child receive potentially life-saving treatment after birth as a legal battle unfolds over who has medical decision-making authority.

A complicated surrogacy arrangement involving three states has become the center of a legal battle in Texas over who gets to make medical decisions for a baby diagnosed before birth with a serious heart condition.

According to CBS News Texas’ report, McKenna West, a surrogate from Alaska, is carrying a baby known as Gabriel for intended parents who live in California. During the pregnancy, the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare condition in which the left side of the heart is underdeveloped.

The condition typically requires immediate surgery after birth.

The intended parents allegedly asked West to have an abortion after learning of the diagnosis, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office. West declined and traveled to Texas, where she sought access to doctors experienced in treating the condition.

The dispute escalated when Paxton intervened in the Dallas County case and asked a court to ensure the baby would receive medical care after birth.

“The intended parents have refused to agree that they will consent to the life-saving surgery upon birth,” Paxton’s office said, alleging they could attempt to take the baby out of Texas to prevent treatment.

A Dallas district court subsequently issued an emergency order preventing anyone from withholding or obstructing medically necessary treatment after Gabriel’s birth. The order also prevents the child from being removed, transferred or discharged while the case remains under consideration. 

“Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life,” Paxton said, adding that his office would use “every tool available” to ensure the child receives care required under Texas law. 

But the ruling is narrowly focused on what happens after birth. The court explicitly stated that it was not directing medical care for the unborn child or limiting West’s ability to make decisions concerning her own health or the pregnancy.

The case also raises complicated questions about the intersection of surrogacy agreements, parental rights, abortion laws and state authority. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s interests, while the broader legal dispute remains unresolved.

For now, the case places a deeply personal medical decision squarely in the middle of a much larger legal fight over who ultimately gets to speak for a child before and after birth.