The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday denied surrogate McKenna West’s request to keep the one‑month‑old infant she delivered in Dallas, clearing the way for the child’s biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, to transfer him to a Los Angeles hospital for further treatment.
Court’s Reasoning Focuses on Child’s Health
In a brief opinion, the court emphasized that “sustaining the life of the medically fragile child is the paramount concern in this time‑sensitive matter.” The justices relied on uncontroverted medical testimony from the child’s Dallas physician, who recommended an ICU‑to‑ICU transfer to preserve the infant’s life as long as possible.
The court also considered testimony from the guardian ad litem, Susan Duesler, and doctors at Children’s Hospital in Dallas. Both testified at an Aug. 25 hearing that the child’s remaining surgeries should be performed in Los Angeles and that delaying the transfer would create “much more complicated treatment.”
Parents’ Legal Wins Across States
Gilkar and Ahmed have already secured custody victories in California, Alaska and Texas. The couple says they are focused on Rumi’s health and have followed every recommendation of his medical team. Their Dallas‑based attorney, Lee Budner, noted that while West has been conducting a publicity tour, the parents have been quietly caring for their son and complying with the doctors’ plan.
West, an Alaskan surrogate, argued she needed sole conservatorship to make medical decisions for the child. She alleged the parents pressured her to obtain an abortion after the unborn child was diagnosed in utero with a potentially fatal heart defect. The child, born with an underdeveloped heart, has already undergone one surgery and will likely need additional procedures.
Potential Supreme Court Involvement Rejected
West’s legal team also filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay of the Texas decision. Gilkar and Ahmed responded with a heavily redacted brief, asserting that the case has already been decided and falls outside the high court’s jurisdiction. They warned that a stay would interrupt Rumi’s medical care and create “chaos” for the providers who rely on the parents’ consent.
Budner added that a stay would not change who Rumi’s parents are, but would only create confusion over medical decision‑making authority and jeopardize the continuity of the child’s treatment.
Background on the Surrogacy Dispute
The dispute began when West flew to Texas— a state that bans abortion— in the summer to seek custody of the infant. Gilkar, who underwent eight unsuccessful rounds of in‑vitro fertilization and a hysterectomy, pursued surrogacy to build her family. The case has drawn national attention because it pits a surrogate’s claim to parental rights against the biological parents’ right to direct medical care for their child.
While the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the parents’ authority, the case underscores ongoing legal questions about surrogacy agreements, parental‑rights and the role of courts in medically complex situations.
What Comes Next
With the court’s decision, the parents plan to arrange an ICU‑to‑ICU transfer of Rumi to a Los Angeles facility as soon as possible. The move will allow the child’s doctors to perform the remaining surgeries recommended for his heart condition. The case is expected to remain under close observation as it may set precedent for future surrogacy and custody disputes involving medically fragile infants.
Original reporting: Texas Tribune (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
