Full Breakdown
Texas Court Battles Surrogate Over Custody of Newborn with Critical Heart Defect
8/26/2026, 6:10:44 AM
The Court Fight Over Medical Control
A Dallas County judge has kept a temporary restraining order in place, preventing surrogate McKenna West from seeing, holding, transporting, or making medical decisions for the infant she delivered in August 2026. West is seeking sole managing conservatorship, arguing that the intended parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed asked her to terminate the pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). Gilkar and Ahmed contend they have always intended to provide life-saving care and have asked the court to delay a hearing on the restraining order while the baby recovers from open-heart surgery.
Background & Context
Gilkar and Ahmed entered a compensated surrogacy agreement with West in August 2025. The contract required West to comply with a termination request if a fetal abnormality was discovered. During a 20-week fetal scan on April 17, 2026, the unborn boy was diagnosed with HLHS, a condition in which the left side of the heart fails to develop. The couple asked West to abort; she cancelled appointments in Seattle and California and traveled to Dallas with her two children so the baby could receive the Norwood procedure, the first of three surgeries typically required for HLHS.
Texas law bans most abortions after 2022, and Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened before the birth, securing an emergency order that hospitals provide “stabilizing and life-sustaining” care and that the infant remain in Texas.
Official Statements & Responses
- Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, issued a press release asserting that “Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life, and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care.”
- West’s attorneys argue the restraining order was issued without proof that the parents would suffer injury if West were allowed to act as the child’s birth mother, and they contend that a California court’s designation of the intended parents as legal parents is invalid under Texas law.
- Gilkar and Ahmed filed a temporary restraining order that bars West from medical decision-making; their filings describe the infant’s condition as “critical” and request that the court maintain the order while the child remains in intensive care.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Abortion Clause Enforcement – West’s lawyers claim the abortion provision is unenforceable in Texas because the state requires the pregnant woman’s voluntary consent, while the intended parents assert the contract gave them the right to demand termination.
- Parental Commitment to Surgery – West’s counsel alleges the parents have not guaranteed that the infant will receive all required surgeries; the parents’ filings deny any refusal of care and state they will pursue further procedures as needed.
- Legal Parentage – A California court in June 2026 designated Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents, but West argues Texas law does not recognize that designation until after birth, creating a jurisdictional dispute.
What’s Next
The judge has extended the restraining order for an additional two weeks while a ruling on permanent conservatorship is pending. A hearing on the final custody and conservatorship request is scheduled for later in the month, though the exact date has not been disclosed. Both sides are expected to present additional evidence on the enforceability of the abortion clause and the parents’ commitment to ongoing medical treatment.
