Court Battle Over Child with Heart Condition
A couple from California is embroiled in a legal battle with their surrogate over their newborn’s rights in a Texas court. The infant, born with a serious heart defect, has seen his condition deteriorate, according to the couple. They express distress over attempts to deny their parental rights due to their prior decision to pursue an abortion.
Testifying in court, Nausheen Gilkar stated, “He’s our child,” while expressing concern about the surrogate, McKenna West’s intentions. Gilkar alleges that West is trying to take the child away.
Public Dispute Involving Surrogacy and Abortion
This case has attracted the attention of right-to-life organizations and political figures favoring West, who traveled from Alaska to deliver the baby in Texas on August 12. The state has stringent abortion restrictions.
Gilkar and her spouse, Omar Ahmed, named the newborn Rumi, while West refers to the child as Gabriel. West’s attorneys are seeking sole conservatorship, claiming the child requires dedicated medical care.
West shared her discomfort with the abortion procedure suggested by the couple at 23 weeks pregnant, stating her belief in the child’s survival potential.
Following the birth, the couple obtained a court order preventing West from contacting or holding the child. A final decision on custody or conservatorship remains pending.
Child’s Critical Health Situation
According to documents filed by the couple’s attorney, the child’s condition has worsened. Diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, fewer than 1,000 newborns are affected by this defect annually, according to the CDC. Treatment is essential, as the condition can be fatal within weeks without intervention.
Gilkar described the child’s struggles post-surgery, including difficulty breathing and receiving a blood transfusion. “He’s the most beautiful person I’ve never seen,” Gilkar remarked emotionally.
Debate Over Abortion Request
The surrogate and her legal team argue that the couple’s desire for an abortion suggests unwillingness to ensure necessary surgeries and care for the child. Proposed conservatorship by West hinges on the couple’s commitment to medical treatment.
Under questioning, Gilkar was asked to confirm her request for an abortion and the couple’s intentions if the pregnancy were terminated. She expressed no regret over the decision.
West’s legal representative questioned Gilkar’s trust in those wanting the child deceased, to which Gilkar was unable to provide a definitive response.
Contractual Violations Alleged
Gilkar and Ahmed allege that West violated the surrogacy agreement established in August 2025. Gilkar had undergone extensive IVF treatments leading to a necessary hysterectomy.
Gilkar recounted supporting West through the IVF process, which included handholding during the transfer.
The couple’s attorney cited a California court ruling denying West any custody rights. West contested this ruling, expressing willingness to fight based on the child’s prognosis.
Lack of federal surrogacy regulations leads to state-specific interpretations, creating potential legal ambiguities. “We believe Ms. West is the mother of this child,” asserted Domen, West’s attorney.