In a Dallas courtroom on Tuesday, a California couple and the surrogate who carried their child presented opposing arguments over who should make medical decisions for the newborn, who was born with a life‑threatening heart defect.
Couple asserts parental rights
Nausheen Gilkar, tearful on the witness stand, told the judge that the infant – whom the couple named Rumi – is their child and that his condition has “significantly” declined since birth. The baby was delivered on Aug. 12 in Texas, a state where most abortions are prohibited. Gilkar said the child suffers from hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare congenital defect that leaves one side of the heart under‑developed and can be fatal without surgery.
According to court documents, Rumi required a blood transfusion, struggled to breathe, and has had limited blood flow to the left side of his heart despite surgical intervention. Gilkar described him as “the most beautiful person” she has ever seen and expressed anguish over attempts to strip the couple of parental rights because they had previously asked the surrogate to terminate the pregnancy.
Surrogate seeks conservatorship
McKenna West, a 23‑year‑old nurse who flew from Alaska to give birth, sits across from the couple and is represented by attorneys Lee Budner and Jeff Domen. West’s lawyers argue that the couple never committed to ensuring the child would receive the necessary life‑saving surgeries, and therefore she should be granted sole conservatorship to make medical decisions.
West testified that she was 23 weeks pregnant when the couple urged her to schedule an abortion, but she was uncomfortable with the request. She said she believed the unborn child had a strong chance of survival and a long life despite the diagnosis. After the birth, the couple obtained a restraining order preventing West from seeing or holding the infant, a order that remains in effect.
Legal backdrop and contract claims
The dispute centers on a surrogacy contract signed in August 2025. Gilkar says she entered the agreement after eight rounds of in‑vitro fertilization in Los Angeles and a hysterectomy left her unable to carry a child herself. She claims West violated the contract by refusing to follow the couple’s wishes regarding the pregnancy and by seeking custody.
West’s counsel cited a California court ruling that found she has no legal or physical custody rights under the contract, but West asks the Texas judge to disregard that decision, insisting she is prepared to fight for the child’s care.
Broader implications
The case highlights the complex intersection of surrogacy, parental‑rights, and abortion policy in a state where abortion is largely banned. Right‑to‑life groups and Republican officials have voiced support for West, framing the dispute as a matter of protecting the unborn child’s right to life.
Surrogacy remains largely unregulated at the federal level, leaving each state to interpret contracts and parental‑rights issues on its own. Legal experts note that the outcome could set a precedent for future surrogacy arrangements in Texas and other states with similar legal gaps.
The judge did not issue a final ruling on custody or conservatorship on Tuesday, and the timeline for a decision remains unclear.
Original reporting: Texarkana Gazette — read the source article.
