Full Breakdown
Texas Surrogacy Dispute Ends with Baby Placed in Intended Parents’ Custody
8/14/2026, 4:19:31 AM
Background and Legal Conflict
Surrogate McKenna West, an Alaska resident, traveled to Texas after a 20-week ultrasound revealed the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a rare congenital heart defect. The intended parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, sought to terminate the pregnancy under a clause in their surrogacy agreement that allowed abortion if an anomaly was found. West refused to comply and fled to Texas, where abortion is prohibited.
Court Orders and Custody Decision
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, securing an emergency court order that required two Dallas hospitals—UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center of Dallas—to provide lifesaving care to the newborn. The same order designated Gilkar and Ahmed as the parties responsible for all medical decisions and issued a restraining order preventing West from having any contact with the child. The baby, whom West called Gabriel, was born early, before the scheduled due date of September 2, and was placed in the physical custody of the intended parents shortly after birth.
Medical Condition and Care
The infant’s HLHS diagnosis mandates a series of surgeries beginning within the first weeks of life. Hospital physicians reported that, aside from the heart defect, the baby’s overall condition showed positive signs. The court-mandated care plan aims to address the defect through staged surgical interventions.
Official Statements
Lee Budner, attorney for Gilkar and Ahmed, said the parents are concentrating on the child’s health and cherishing time with him, characterizing West’s attempt to intervene as “baseless” and “political theater.” Lincoln Davis Wilson, West’s lawyer, announced plans to challenge the parentage order, arguing that Texas law identifies the woman who gives birth as the child’s mother.
Ongoing Legal Actions
West’s counsel intends to appeal the custody and parentage rulings, maintaining that the current orders conflict with Texas statutes on maternal rights. The case remains active as the parties prepare for further judicial review.
