A deeply personal legal battle involving a surrogate, a California couple and a baby born with a life-threatening heart condition reached the U.S. Supreme Court after producing competing claims and emergency proceedings across three states.
But the nation’s highest court did not take up the broader questions surrounding surrogacy, abortion or parental rights.
Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday denied an emergency application from surrogate McKenna West seeking to block enforcement of a California judgment recognizing Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed as the baby’s legal parents.
Kagan, who handles emergency applications arising from the federal appeals court covering California, rejected the request without explanation and did not refer it to the full Supreme Court.
The decision left the California parentage order intact.
The extraordinary dispute began after West, an Alaska nurse and mother, entered a gestational-surrogacy agreement with Gilkar and Ahmed, a California couple who had struggled to have a child.
West became pregnant with an embryo created using the couple’s genetic material.
About 20 weeks into the pregnancy, doctors diagnosed the fetus with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital defect in which the left side of the heart is critically underdeveloped.
Children born with the condition generally require multiple operations, and some ultimately need heart transplants.
After receiving the diagnosis, Gilkar and Ahmed asked West to terminate the pregnancy.
The surrogacy agreement reportedly contained a provision requiring West to comply with an abortion request from the intended parents under certain circumstances involving fetal abnormalities.
West’s refusal eventually triggered a sprawling legal dispute over the agreement, parental authority and which state’s courts had jurisdiction.
She traveled to Texas, where most abortions are prohibited, and sought legal authority over the child’s medical care.
West argued that she no longer trusted Gilkar and Ahmed to authorize aggressive treatment after birth because they had previously sought an abortion.
The couple disputed that characterization of their intentions.
Although they acknowledged considering abortion after receiving the diagnosis, they said they were committed to obtaining lifesaving treatment for their son after the pregnancy continued.
West gave birth in Dallas on Aug. 12.
The couple named their son Rumi, while West has publicly referred to him as Gabriel.
The baby underwent open-heart surgery shortly after birth and remained under specialized medical care as the court battles continued.
California courts recognized Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents.
West nevertheless sought conservatorship in Texas, arguing that she should be allowed to participate in decisions concerning the baby’s treatment.
A Texas judge ultimately dismissed West from the custody proceedings, recognizing the California couple’s parental rights.
West then turned to the Supreme Court.
Her attorneys asked Kagan to temporarily block enforcement of the California judgment while West continued challenging the decision.
They argued that without a stay, West would lose “control over the medically fragile child” and potentially be deprived of information about the baby she carried throughout the pregnancy.
West also raised jurisdictional arguments involving California and Alaska.
Gilkar and Ahmed urged the Supreme Court not to intervene.
Their attorneys said the couple had remained with their son in Texas, authorized his medical treatment and intended to continue pursuing the care recommended by his doctors.
They argued that reopening questions about who possessed medical decision-making authority could create dangerous uncertainty while the infant remained seriously ill.
“Such chaos would be devastating for Respondents and, most importantly, their child,” their attorneys told the court.
The Texas Supreme Court had separately rejected West’s attempt to prevent the couple from transferring the baby to California for additional treatment.
“Sustaining the life of the medically fragile child is the paramount concern in this time-sensitive matter,” the Texas court said.
Court records indicated the baby’s Dallas physician supported allowing his parents to take him to Los Angeles for further care.
Kagan’s brief order does not resolve many of the broader legal and ethical questions the case has generated.
It does not create a nationwide rule governing abortion provisions in surrogacy contracts, decide whether such a provision can be enforced against a pregnant surrogate who changes her mind or settle the broader debate over how parental rights should operate in gestational-surrogacy arrangements.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
