A baby’s heart diagnosis turned a private surrogacy arrangement into a legal fight spanning three states, and now the intended parents are suing the woman who carried their son for more than $100,000.
Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with McKenna West, an Alaska surrogate, to carry the pregnancy for them. Everything was tracking normally until a scan around 20 weeks flagged hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious condition affecting the left side of the baby’s heart. After that diagnosis, the two sides split so badly that courts in California, Alaska, and Texas became involved.
The baby, born in Texas on August 12, 2026, is now at the center of a case touching contract law, parental rights, and the limits of what a surrogacy agreement can actually control once a real pregnancy is underway.
The Surrogacy Agreement at the Center of It All
The entire case comes down to one question: did West break the contract she signed by refusing to end the pregnancy?
West agreed to carry the pregnancy for the intended parents through a surrogacy agency, and she has no genetic connection to the baby. Reports indicate the contract included language addressing fetal abnormalities, but the full agreement has never been made public.
Because the contract is not public, the courts must examine competing interpretations of the agreement.
Once the diagnosis came back, Gilkar and Ahmed pointed to those fetal abnormality provisions and asked West to terminate the pregnancy. West refused and continued carrying the baby anyway.
The intended parents responded by filing suit for breach of contract, seeking more than $100,000 in damages.
The Heart Diagnosis That Changed Everything
A scan around 20 weeks revealing hypoplastic left heart syndrome is the single moment that turned a private arrangement into a legal battle.
HLHS affects how the left side of the heart develops, and babies born with it typically need specialized care and a series of surgeries right after birth.
The diagnosis itself is not disputed. What’s actually being fought over is who had the authority to decide what came next.
Gilkar and Ahmed maintain the surrogacy agreement gave them the right to request termination in a situation like this one. West disagreed and chose to carry the pregnancy to term regardless of that provision.
That single disagreement is now the foundation of the entire lawsuit.
Save this article
Enter your email address and we'll send it straight to your inbox.
The Fight Over Medical Care Before and After Birth
Before the baby was even born, Texas’ attorney general stepped in over concerns about whether he’d actually get the care he needed.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton got involved ahead of the birth, saying: “Baby Gabriel deserves a chance at life, and I will not allow anyone to unlawfully deny him medically necessary care.”
That intervention followed concerns raised by West and Texas officials about whether the baby would be treated once he arrived. Gilkar and Ahmed pushed back on that characterization, saying in court filings that they never intended to withhold care and simply wanted to defer to doctors’ recommendations.
After the birth, the intended parents did consent to treatment, including surgery, and their attorneys say the baby is currently receiving specialized medical care.
Even that part of the story hasn’t been simple, since the child now has two different names depending on who’s talking about him. West and her supporters call him Gabriel, while Gilkar and Ahmed call him Rumi.
Why Three States Got Pulled Into One Custody Fight
California, Alaska, and Texas all ended up with a stake in this case, and that’s exactly what made it so complicated.
Gilkar and Ahmed live in California, West lives in Alaska, and the baby was born in Texas after West traveled there during the dispute. California courts issued a parentage order recognizing Gilkar and Ahmed as the child’s legal parents.
Texas courts went a step further, issuing orders that restrict West from making medical decisions for the baby or presenting herself as his parent.
Even with those rulings in place, West is still challenging parts of the outcome and pushing to have her parental rights recognized. The full surrogacy contract that started all of this has never been released publicly, leaving plenty of open questions about how its terms should be interpreted.
Cases like this one tend to shape how future surrogacy agreements get written, particularly around what happens when a serious diagnosis shows up mid-pregnancy. The two sides don’t agree on the next step.
As assisted reproduction becomes more common, the legal systems built to manage it are still catching up to disputes like this one.
Both sides in this case say they were trying to do right by the same baby, so where exactly did their idea of ‘doing right’ start to pull apart?
Read More:
- Texas Man Who Claimed Girlfriend Was Forced to Take Abortion Pills Drops Case After His Own Domestic Violence Record Is Raised
- A Surrogate Was Asked to End the Pregnancy but Gave Birth Instead, and Now Three States Are Fighting Over Who He Belongs To
- YouTuber Jesse Ridgway and Wife End Pregnancy Following Down Syndrome Diagnosis
- Baby Rumi’s First Heart Surgery Marks a New Chapter After a Surrogacy Dispute Made Headlines
