A newborn with a severe heart defect is receiving medical care in Texas with his intended parents after the woman who carried him challenged their legal parentage, continuing a dispute that began months before his birth.
McKenna West, an Alaska woman who served as a gestational surrogate for California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, gave birth to the boy in Dallas on Aug. 12. A California court had already recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as the child's legal parents, while a Dallas judge later barred West from making medical decisions for the newborn or representing herself as his mother.
West has been denied contact with the baby and plans to continue challenging the rulings, according to her attorney. Gilkar and Ahmed remain with the child while he receives specialized treatment.
The dispute began months before the birth after doctors diagnosed the fetus at about 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS, a congenital condition in which the left side of the heart is severely underdeveloped. Treatment generally involves several surgeries beginning soon after birth and continued cardiac care.
West claims Gilkar and Ahmed pressured her to terminate the pregnancy after learning of the diagnosis. The couple disputes her account. In an Alaska court filing, their attorneys said the parties initially agreed to terminate the pregnancy and that West made the first appointment before changing her mind and cutting off communication with them.
As the pregnancy continued, Gilkar and Ahmed said they consulted specialists and arranged for West to deliver in California so the baby could begin treatment with a cardiac team there. West instead traveled to Texas, where she sought an order recognizing her as the child's mother and giving her authority over his medical care.
The couple has also accused West of violating the surrogacy agreement. Surrogacy agreements commonly set out the parties' responsibilities during pregnancy, including medical care and how serious complications will be handled. Those terms can support a contract claim if one side says the agreement was broken, but they do not necessarily allow one person to compel another to undergo a medical procedure.
The alleged contract breach does not by itself determine who is legally recognized as the child's parent. In a gestational surrogacy arrangement, the person who gives birth is not necessarily the child's legal parent. State laws differ, and some allow intended parents to obtain a court judgment establishing parentage before birth.
California law allows intended parents in qualifying gestational surrogacy arrangements to seek a parentage order before birth. A California trial court entered such a judgment recognizing Gilkar and Ahmed as the child's parents, and a state appellate court later rejected West's effort to prevent it from taking effect.
The California judgment remained legally significant after West traveled to Texas. Under the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, states generally must recognize valid judgments issued by courts in other states.
Paxton's own filing acknowledges that Texas must recognize a valid California parentage judgment, while arguing that the order does not prevent Texas from enforcing its laws governing a child's medical care.
Shortly before the birth, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, alleging that Gilkar and Ahmed had not agreed to authorize necessary surgery and asking the Dallas court to ensure the newborn received medically indicated treatment.
The couple disputed the suggestion that they intended to deny their child care. Ahmed said in a court filing that they had been seeking access to the baby's doctors so they could make informed medical decisions and that refusing treatment had not been their position.
A Dallas judge ordered that medically necessary care could not be withheld or obstructed and restricted the child's removal, discharge or transfer while the court considered the dispute. The order also provides for an emergency hearing if medically indicated treatment is refused.
Parents generally have broad authority to make medical decisions for their children, but courts can intervene when withholding necessary treatment would place a child's health or life at serious risk. Those rules apply regardless of the separate dispute over who holds parental rights.
The temporary restrictions on West remain in place ahead of the next hearing in the Texas case, scheduled for Aug. 25.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez is asking a state court to order the return of a 15-year-old U.S. citizen from Mexico after child welfare workers allegedly drove him to a Texas border crossing and directed him to enter the country alone.Filed July 28 in the First Judicial District Court... Read More »
A mechanical failure at a San Francisco fertility clinic caused plaintiffs to lose three embryos that they planned to use for in vitro fertilization. The couple, who hoped for a child, had purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy for the embryos. Their policy, however, would only reimburse them for “direct physical... Read More »
The complex case of Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old nurse from Georgia who was declared brain dead at approximately nine weeks pregnant, has ignited fierce debate over the state's restrictive abortion laws, raising significant legal and ethical questions. Smith has remained on life support for over 90 days, with doctors at... Read More »
A 49-year-old Texas woman has filed a lawsuit against Dallas-based hospital healthcare system Baylor Scott and White. Her lawsuit alleges that she was switched at birth with another baby, causing her to experience preventable pain and suffering. Growing up, Melissa Brewton says that she always felt out of place within... Read More »
The United States Supreme Court has decided to take up a case on the constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming care. Currently, the states are split on whether this care should be allowed for minors under the age of 18. Gender-affirming care is used to treat gender dysmorphia, which occurs... Read More »
