How a California Couple and an Alaska Surrogate Ended Up in a Texas Court Fight

A newborn with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening condition in which one side of the heart is underdeveloped, is at the center of a cross-state legal fight involving intended parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar and surrogate McKenna West, a nurse from Alaska. West gave birth in Texas on Wednesday, while the California couple argued in court that she violated their surrogacy contract and that a California court had already determined she has no legal or physical custody rights.

Court documents tell two sharply different stories. The couple says West initially agreed to terminate the pregnancy after a 20-week diagnosis and even made the initial appointment, then changed her mind and cut off contact. West and her lawyers, backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, say the couple pressured her to seek an abortion. West petitioned a Dallas court for custody two days before giving birth. Anti-abortion group Live Action paid for West and her two children to fly to Texas, where abortion is banned.

The dispute escalated when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, and a Dallas judge ordered UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Medical Center of Dallas to provide life-sustaining care and keep the baby in Texas until at least a late-August hearing. A California attorney with surrogacy experience said a California court would likely honor the contract, but the case now hinges on how Texas handles a newborn whose condition requires the Norwood procedure within days or weeks of birth, followed by additional surgeries or a possible transplant.

What the Texas Case Reveals About Surrogacy Contracts and Abortion Politics

Why the California Custody Ruling Is Not Ending the Texas Fight

Ahmed and Gilkar are relying on a California court's conclusion that West has no parental or custody rights. West's late petition in Dallas, however, tests whether a Texas judge will weigh the state's interest in the newborn's medical treatment differently. The case is a genuine collision between a state that generally treats a surrogate as not a parent and a state where the attorney general has framed the dispute as an effort to protect a severely ill baby's life.

Advertisement

What Ken Paxton and Anti-Abortion Groups Brought to the Case

Live Action's payment for West and her children's travel to Texas is not peripheral; it moved the birth into a state with an abortion ban and an attorney general willing to intervene. Paxton's office notified the two Dallas hospitals of their legal obligations and accused the parents of refusing consent to life-saving surgery, which the couple denies. That turns a private contract dispute into a political test of whether a state can override a family's medical and custodial decisions after a fetal diagnosis.

The Contract Clause That Could Decide the Case

Surrogacy attorneys often treat termination clauses and birth-location terms as central protections. The dispute shows how quickly those provisions can be tested when a surrogate changes course and travels across state lines. California attorney Maya Shulman said a California court would likely enforce the agreement and recognize the couple as parents, but West has already shifted the legal venue. The outcome may depend less on contract language than on which court and state officials act first during the newborn's narrow window for heart surgery.

What Intended Parents, Surrogates and Policymakers Can Draw From the Case

  • For intended parents and surrogates using an agency such as Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists: Confirm that the contract specifically assigns decision-making authority for termination, birth location and post-birth custody after a severe fetal diagnosis. Here, the parents argue the surrogate broke the contract after initially agreeing to end the pregnancy, while West sought custody through a Texas court two days before delivery.
  • For medical teams treating hypoplastic left heart syndrome: The newborn requires the Norwood procedure within days or weeks of birth, followed by additional surgeries or possible transplant. Providers should expect consent and custody questions to arise alongside urgent cardiac care when the intended parents and the birth surrogate are in different states.
  • For reproductive-rights and surrogacy policymakers: The late-August Dallas hearing is a concrete test of whether Texas will defer to the California custody determination or assert its own interest in the child's medical care. A ruling could push states to clarify whether a surrogate's post-diagnosis change of mind can override the intended parents' contract rights.
  • For parties to cross-state surrogacy arrangements: Live Action's payment for West and her children to travel to Texas shows how third-party funding of travel to a state with an abortion ban can change the legal and political venue. Contracts should address the state of birth, travel funding and third-party involvement before a medical crisis starts.