A California couple and an Alaska nurse are locked in a Dallas courtroom fight over who controls medical decisions for a critically ill newborn—a case that hinges on competing interpretations of a surrogacy contract worth $60,000 and questions about what happens when intended parents and their surrogate fundamentally disagree on a child's fate.
The newborn, referred to as Rumi by intended parents Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed and as Gabriel by surrogate McKenna West, remains in critical condition at a Dallas hospital following open-heart surgery for hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a severe heart defect that leaves one side of the heart underdeveloped. Court filings show the infant was re-intubated on a breathing tube after his condition deteriorated following the Norwood procedure performed Aug. 17—the first of typically three open-heart surgeries used to treat the condition.
What began as a private surrogacy arrangement has mushroomed into a high-profile legal dispute with layers of contractual claims, emotional distress allegations and state-level political intervention.
According to West's account, Gilkar and Ahmed asked her to terminate the pregnancy after a diagnosis at roughly 20 weeks. West refused. The couple disputes this characterization, according to attorney Jason Budner, who represents them. Budner told Fox News Digital that Gilkar and Ahmed agreed to pursue treatment and that doctors cleared the newborn for the Norwood procedure on Aug. 14.
Counterclaims filed by Gilkar and Ahmed seek more than $100,000 in damages and allege that West breached their surrogacy agreement and caused them emotional distress. Court documents reference a $60,000 payment West received during pregnancy "under an agreement that addressed termination." West has denied wrongdoing and requested dismissal of the claims.
The timeline suggests the relationship was strained before birth. West traveled to Texas to deliver despite the couple's location in California—an unusual choice for a surrogacy arrangement that raises questions about logistics and control. After the Aug. 12 birth, West said she had only about 60 seconds with the newborn while his umbilical cord remained attached before he was taken away. A court order now bars her from seeing or holding the baby.
On Tuesday, a Dallas family court judge heard arguments about temporary conservatorship. Gilkar told the court the couple has maintained a bedside vigil as their son undergoes treatment. She described the infant as "the love of our lives" and detailed post-surgical complications: breathing difficulties, choking on tubes and the need for blood transfusion. She characterized West's push for sole conservatorship as an attempt to separate them from their child.
West's legal team has taken a different position, arguing the court should ensure the baby receives life-saving care. According to the Associated Press, West indicated she would abandon her conservatorship request if the court determined the intended parents are genuinely committed to treatment.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton entered the picture before the birth, securing an emergency court order directing that medically necessary care not be delayed or obstructed. His office notified two Dallas medical centers of their obligations to provide life-saving treatment. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services later warned Texas hospitals against denying care to the newborn based on disability.
The judge did not immediately rule on the larger conservatorship question during Tuesday's hearing. The temporary custody order giving Gilkar and Ahmed control remained in place. Gilkar and Ahmed have asked the court to delay hearings over the temporary restraining order while the litigation continues.
Unresolved remain: the interpretation of the original surrogacy agreement, the extent of each party's obligations under that contract, whether West's refusal to terminate constituted a breach, and how a court should weigh emotional distress claims against a surrogate's stated medical concerns about the child's welfare.
For a court to untangle this will require examining the actual contract language, testimony about what was discussed between the parties, and documentary evidence about the pregnancy, diagnosis and treatment decisions.
