Relief for biological parents of baby born with a heart defect as judge dismisses surrogate’s Supreme Court custody bid.
A surrogate mother who chose to continue her pregnancy after doctors discovered that the unborn baby had a severe heart defect has lost her final attempt to bring a custody dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court.
McKenna West had asked the nation’s highest court to step in over the contentious custody battle involving the five-week-old boy, whom she refers to as Gabriel, while his biological parents call him Rumi.
However, Justice Elena Kagan rejected West’s emergency petition, leaving intact a California court order that recognizes the child’s biological parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, as his legal guardians.
“We are relieved that Rumi can continue receiving the medical treatment necessary for his survival and that he will remain with his parents, who are committed to making sure he receives the best possible care,” Ahmed and Gilkar’s attorneys told the Daily Mail.
The legal team added that West’s filings in three states, multiple appellate courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court had challenged Rumi’s parents’ ability to make medical decisions for their son. According to the attorneys, every court that considered the matter has rejected those efforts.
The decision came as photographs obtained by the Daily Mail showed the newborn surrounded by tubes and medical equipment, with a prominent surgical scar down the middle of his chest following emergency heart surgery.
The images, provided by Ahmed and Gilkar, offer a rare public look at the infant at the center of the contentious custody dispute.
Rumi was born in Dallas on August 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a rare and potentially life-threatening condition in which the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped and unable to adequately pump blood throughout the body.
He underwent complicated heart surgery shortly after birth. His parents later told a Texas court that he experienced serious medical complications and that his condition worsened, at one point requiring doctors to intubate him again.
The complicated legal dispute began while West was still pregnant.
After unsuccessful IVF attempts, the couple turned to surrogacy and entered into an agreement with West, a cardiac nurse from Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025. The contract included a provision allowing the pregnancy to be terminated if a fetal abnormality was discovered.
West later said she was asked to terminate the pregnancy after an ultrasound at about 20 weeks revealed that the baby had a serious heart condition.
She declined and subsequently traveled to Texas to give birth, as a broader disagreement developed over what the surrogacy contract allowed the intended parents to request.
West’s attorneys have argued that she was concerned the couple might decline potentially lifesaving treatment for the baby. She has sought custody or conservatorship, saying she wants to make sure the child continues receiving necessary medical care.
Ahmed and Gilkar have strongly rejected that account.
The couple has acknowledged asking West to terminate the pregnancy after learning of the diagnosis but denied ever intending to withhold lifesaving treatment from their son.
Gilkar told a Dallas judge last month that she and her husband were committed to obtaining the medical care their son, whom they named Rumi, needs—and that West’s actions have added further complexity and tension to an already heartbreaking situation.
Their attorney has argued that West’s ongoing legal efforts could create uncertainty over who has the authority to make critical medical decisions while the baby remains under treatment.
“She’s making us go from doctor to doctor and state to state with our baby. She’s trying to take him,” Gilkar previously testified.
In court documents, the couple also accused West of breaching the terms of their surrogacy agreement and maintained that they, rather than the surrogate, are the child’s legal parents.
The dispute escalated shortly before the baby’s birth when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton became involved and secured a court order requiring the newborn to receive lifesaving medical care.
West’s refusal to terminate the pregnancy has drawn support from her advocates and transformed the case into a broader national debate involving abortion, surrogacy and parental rights.
The case has received backing from anti-abortion groups and Republican officials, while also highlighting the complex legal issues that can arise when surrogacy arrangements involve multiple states.
Because there is no comprehensive federal law governing surrogacy in the United States, states have developed differing rules regarding parental rights and surrogacy agreements.
Despite her efforts, West’s attempts to obtain custody have repeatedly been rejected by the courts.
On September 2, a Texas judge ruled against West’s request for sole conservatorship and dismissed her from the case, while a California court separately recognized Ahmed and Gilkar as the baby’s legal parents.
On September 18, the Texas Supreme Court also cleared the way for the medically fragile infant to leave Texas and travel to Los Angeles for treatment, emphasizing the importance of preserving the child’s life.
West subsequently took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking Justice Kagan to block the California ruling and preserve her ability to advocate for the baby. The Supreme Court has now declined to intervene.
The decision does not resolve every dispute between West and the couple, but it leaves the existing custody arrangement in place, with the newborn remaining in the care of Ahmed and Gilkar.
