A surrogate mother who refused to terminate a pregnancy after the biological parents requested an abortion due to a fetal diagnosis has virtually no legal claim to the child she delivered, reproductive law attorneys have stated. McKenna West, a surrogate in Alaska, reportedly traveled to Texas to give birth to a boy, whom she named Gabriel, after the biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of Los Angeles, asked her to terminate the pregnancy following a diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) at 20 weeks.
West, a single mother of two, stated that she changed her mind about the termination, alleging the couple tried to force her to have an abortion, a claim the parents deny. Their agreement reportedly included a clause allowing them to seek an abortion if an anomaly was found. However, the surrogate's decision to carry the pregnancy to term did not negate the biological parents' rights.
Parental Rights and State Laws
"I don’t see any reason why these biological parents wouldn’t still be the legal parents of this child," Marla Neufeld, a Florida-based reproductive lawyer, told The Post. Neufeld explained that while West had decision-making authority over her body regarding the abortion, this is separate from the established parental rights of Gilkar and Ahmed. A California court had already issued a parentage order recognizing Gilkar and Ahmed as the legal parents, regardless of where the child was born.
Despite West's attorney, Lincoln Wilson, asserting that Texas law recognizes the birth mother as the parent, legal experts suggest this stance is unlikely to prevail. "I don’t see a world where [West] has rights to the baby," Neufeld stated. "She is not the biological parent… and under the states that are at play — between Alaska, California and Texas – I’m not aware of anything in their surrogacy provisions that would give her access to the child."
Legal and Medical Intervention
The case gained attention when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, filing a petition urging doctors to provide life-saving care to the newborn and to prevent the child from being taken out of state. A judge granted this order. Newborns with HLHS typically require immediate surgery to survive. The baby is currently receiving medical care, with the parents' attorney stating they will prioritize their son's health and well-being.
Gilkar and Ahmed are reportedly devastated by the public attention, with their attorney criticizing the Texas Attorney General's office and West for turning their family tragedy into "political theater."
Potential Legal Precedent
West's attorney has indicated she is prepared to fight for custody up to the Supreme Court. However, legal experts consider this an unlikely path, emphasizing that West has no biological claim to the child. The case may lead to legislative changes, with experts suggesting states might review their surrogacy laws to add safeguards. "There might be additional safeguards added to certain laws or laws created – and some states don’t have surrogacy laws. So there might just be more infrastructure established just nationwide in general," Neufeld said.
Gilkar and Ahmed are suing West, and a Dallas County court is scheduled to hear the case on August 25. The biological parents had named the boy Rumi and intended for him to receive lifelong treatment in California.