McKenna West, an Alaska cardiac nurse, agreed to act as a gestational surrogate for California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed.
Doctors later diagnosed the child with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS, a severe congenital defect involving an underdeveloped left side of the heart. After Gilkar and Ahmed sought an abortion, West refused to terminate the pregnancy.
West gave birth in Texas on August 12, 2026. Gilkar and Ahmed call the child Rumi, while West calls him Gabriel.
A legal fight now centers on genetics, gestation, contractual intent, jurisdiction, and existing parentage orders.
How the Surrogacy Dispute Developed
View this post on Instagram
Gilkar and Ahmed entered a surrogacy agreement with West in August 2025.
Gilkar testified that she pursued surrogacy after eight unsuccessful IVF rounds and a hysterectomy.
Doctors detected HLHS around the 20th week of pregnancy. West testified that she scheduled an abortion at about 23 weeks but ultimately decided not to proceed.
Gilkar and Ahmed say their agreement contemplated termination in cases involving severe fetal abnormalities and accuse West of violating its terms. West says she was pressured to end the pregnancy.
West later traveled to Texas, where she sought to ensure that the baby would receive treatment after birth.
What the Case Means for Legal Parenthood
Gestational surrogacy can separate genetic parenthood, pregnancy, childbirth, and intent to raise a child among different people.
Gilkar and Ahmed rely on genetics, the surrogacy agreement, their intent to parent, and California’s parentage order.
West relies on gestation, childbirth, and her argument that California never obtained lawful authority over her.
State boundaries add another layer. West lived in Alaska, Gilkar and Ahmed lived in California, California issued the parentage order, and the baby was born and treated in Texas.
Disputes involving parental rights can quickly move into broader family law questions involving custody, court orders, and each parent’s legal authority.
Firms such as Heimerl & Lammers handle family law and child custody matters where those rights must be defined or challenged in court.
California Recognizes Gilkar and Ahmed as the Legal Parents
Gilkar and Ahmed asked a California court to establish their parental rights.
On June 22, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court declared them the child’s legal parents.
West argued that proceedings should occur in Alaska under the surrogacy agreement and said she appeared in California only to dispute jurisdiction.
California’s court treated a 147-page filing submitted on her behalf as participation sufficient to accept its authority. West’s lawyers say most of those pages consisted of exhibits supporting her jurisdictional objection.
West also argues that she was not properly served because FedEx delivered court papers to her babysitter.
West Claims Parental Rights
West sought sole conservatorship, which could give her authority over medical decisions involving the child.
Her lawyers argue that carrying and giving birth to the baby gives her a basis to assert parental rights under the law they believe should apply.
Gilkar and Ahmed point to three competing factors:
- Both are genetically related to the child.
- West entered the agreement as a gestational surrogate, not as an intended parent.
- A California court already ruled that West had no legal or physical custody rights.
West later told the Texas court that she would drop her custody claim if Gilkar and Ahmed were committed to obtaining the surgeries the child needed.
Parentage in the case therefore turns on competing claims involving genetics, pregnancy and birth, contractual intent, and court recognition.
A Texas Court Takes Up the Dispute
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened before the birth. A Texas judge ordered hospitals to provide necessary treatment and prevented the child being taken outside Texas while litigation continued.
West gave birth on August 12.
Gilkar and Ahmed later obtained a restraining order preventing West seeing or holding the baby.
On August 17, the child underwent the first of three anticipated open-heart surgeries. Complications later required additional breathing assistance.
HLHS can become fatal within days or weeks without treatment and may require several surgeries. Some patients eventually need a heart transplant.
On September 2, a Texas judge gave effect to California’s parentage ruling and removed West as a party in the case.
Why the Case Reached the Supreme Court
West filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block enforcement of California’s parentage judgment.
Her argument focuses on personal jurisdiction and due process. She says California lacked authority over her because she did not consent to jurisdiction and was not properly served.
California’s court concluded that her extensive filing went further than a limited jurisdictional objection.
West’s lawyers argue that a person should be able to challenge a court’s authority without having that challenge treated as consent to the same authority.
Several questions now sit at the center of her application:
- Did California have personal jurisdiction over West?
- Did her filing amount to consent to California jurisdiction?
- Was service legally sufficient?
- Can Texas rely on California’s judgment if that judgment was entered without valid jurisdiction?
An emergency stay would not decide who the legal parents are. It would temporarily block enforcement of California’s ruling while the jurisdictional dispute continues.
FAQs
Summary
California recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents on June 22, 2026. Texas later treated that ruling as controlling and removed West as a party on September 2.
West continues to challenge California’s judgment on jurisdictional grounds.
Supreme Court involvement now centers on a narrower constitutional issue: Can one state’s court issue a binding parentage judgment against an out-of-state surrogate who argues that the court never obtained lawful jurisdiction over her?
