McKenna West, the surrogate mother who refused intended parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar’s request to abort the fetus, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the fight over the newborn, who has hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
The child was taken from her immediately after birth. In a Sept. 9 filing with Associate Justice Elena Kagan, she seeks an emergency stay of a California parentage judgment while the Court decides whether to take up her case.
On August 12, 2026, surrogate McKenna West gave birth to baby Gabriel after refusing his biological parents’ request to terminate the pregnancy over a serious heart defect.
— Morbid Knowledge (@MorbidKnowledge) August 28, 2026
West moved from Alaska to Texas to continue the pregnancy and secure treatment for Gabriel.
The dispute… pic.twitter.com/mb1nocEvLE
The urgency, West says, is heightened because the child could be moved from the Texas hospital treating him to a California hospice around Sept. 17.
The California Court of Appeal rejected West’s first emergency appeal July 27, then denied two more on July 31 and Aug. 7.
On Aug. 26, the California Supreme Court denied review and a stay.
A Texas court dismissed her from its proceeding Sept. 2, permanently ending her role in that case.
The single mother and registered nurse from Anchorage entered a gestational surrogacy agreement with a California couple, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar. The agreement called for legal proceedings to be brought in Alaska.
😱 ABSOLUMENT FOU
— Black Bond PTV (@BlackBondPtv) August 20, 2026
Une mère porteuse refuse d’avorter après que le bébé a été diagnostiqué avec une grave malformation cardiaque (HLHS).
Elle refuse de le tuer parce qu’elle ne pourrait pas vivre avec ça.
Elle accouche.
Les parents biologiques récupèrent le bébé…
…et la… pic.twitter.com/7oQJQM3FfN
A 20-week anatomy scan in April showed that the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious cardiac condition.
Days later, the couple who paid West to be their surrogate asked for a late-term abortion in Seattle under their contract provision, which purportedly allowed them to require termination if a fetal abnormality was found, and had asked within minutes of the diagnosis whether the pregnancy could be terminated, West recounts. She refused.
A dispute followed over West’s lawyer and compensation. The attorney then representing her was paid by the couple. A demand letter threatened financial penalties of more than $250,000 if she did not comply with the abortion request.
West later fired the attorney. The couple then stopped paying her surrogacy fee.
Because the couple filed in Los Angeles instead of Alaska, West says she was never properly served. A FedEx package intended for her went to her babysitter, whom she says was not a member of her household.
She went to court only to argue that California had no right to hear the case and that Alaska was the right state to hear it, without addressing who should raise the child.
On June 12, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that by making that argument, she had accepted its authority over the whole case because her filings addressed the “substance of the issues.”
A parentage judgment for N.G. and O.A. followed June 22 and was stayed until the child’s birth. West contends that California took authority over her case without the agreement the Constitution requires.
Alaska’s courts had taken a different path before the dispute moved toward Texas. On June 29, an Alaska court formally recognized and enforced California’s ruling.
Judge David Nesbett revisited that order July 27 after finding that “substantial changes” had occurred, including the medical impossibility of a safe birth in Alaska.
His ruling changed the effect of the June 29 order. Where the birth should take place was also up for debate. Alaska retained authority over the other contract disputes.
The State of Alaska entered the parallel litigation July 27 with a statement of interest. It argued that the Alaska Constitution’s privacy protections give a pregnant woman the right to choose her own medical providers.
That right, Alaska said, extends to a gestational surrogate — including where she receives prenatal care and gives birth.
A.B. and C.D. objected to Alaska’s filing. They asked the court to throw it out, arguing the state had no right to weigh in on what they characterized as a private contract dispute.
Their filing also said Alaska’s position failed to account for their parental rights and the child’s best interests. The state did not take a position on custody or medical decision-making after birth.
Hospital staff in Texas, the couple said, advised them to seek a restraining order to prevent West from involving herself in decisions about the child’s care.
They also rejected West’s account of their position on the child’s treatment, writing that they had “repeatedly asserted” they would follow the recommendations of their medical providers. They accused West of “bullying and intimidation.”
Shortly before the birth, a Dallas County district court ordered the hospital to provide life-saving care. It also appointed an independent legal advocate for the child.
The order prohibited his removal from Texas and enforced the California parentage judgment, cutting off West’s access to the child after birth. The Texas Attorney General’s office had asked the court to issue the order.
Doctors advised West to move from Alaska to Texas so the child could be born near a hospital capable of treating his condition. She gave birth there Aug. 12.
The child was taken from her immediately afterward, her application says. He underwent his first required surgery under the Texas order. Two additional surgeries are expected.
By the time the Texas case was dismissed, the Texas Attorney General had withdrawn. That left no party to defend the order requiring life-saving treatment, according to West’s filing.
West also faces a separate financial claim. N.G. testified at a Texas hearing that she did not regret demanding the abortion, according to the emergency application. West says the couple is seeking at least $100,000 from her, along with punitive damages, over her refusal to terminate the pregnancy.
