Baby’s Care Decided – Not By The Birth Mom

newborn baby sleeping in a parent's arms — Photo: KieferPix / Shutterstock

The United States Supreme Court declined to step in, leaving a California parentage order in place and sidelining the surrogate who refused an abortion for a baby with a severe heart defect.

Story Highlights

Supreme Court denial leaves California ruling naming the intended parents in force.
Texas judge relied on California parentage order and dismissed the surrogate from the case.
Surrogate sought access and a voice in medical decisions after refusing abortion.
Cross-state surrogacy rules and contracts now drive who decides the baby’s care.

What The Supreme Court Did — And Did Not — Decide

On September 22, the United States Supreme Court declined an emergency request from McKenna West, an Alaska nurse and gestational surrogate. West asked the Court to halt a California ruling that recognized Los Angeles couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the infant born in Dallas with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The Court’s denial left that California order in effect but did not set a nationwide rule on surrogacy or parental rights.

West’s filing asked for temporary relief to regain access to the child and a role in care decisions while lower courts sort jurisdiction. Reports say the California judgment came first, and Texas courts then leaned on it. West’s emergency plea argued due process and jurisdiction concerns. The Supreme Court’s refusal means the lower court rulings stay in force for now, and the intended parents remain the legal decision-makers during the baby’s treatment.

How Lower Courts Positioned The Parents And The Surrogate

Texas proceedings show how cross-border orders shaped the outcome. After California recognized Ahmed and Gilkar as the legal parents, a Texas judge dismissed West from the Texas case, effectively removing her from medical decision-making and formal custody claims. Court reporting says a separate Texas order also barred West from presenting herself as the baby’s parent or guardian while the intended parents managed decisions within treatment requirements.

The intended parents argue West breached the surrogacy contract by refusing an abortion after the diagnosis. Coverage indicates they attached contract language stating they could request termination if a doctor found a serious fetal abnormality. West declined and later sought court protection for the child and her access. The couple maintains that the California ruling controls legal parentage and that West holds no legal or physical custody rights under that judgment.

Why Surrogacy Law Tilted Toward The Intended Parents

California law has long favored intended parents in gestational surrogacy when the arrangement is properly executed and the surrogate is not genetically related to the child. The California Supreme Court’s Johnson v. Calvert decision established intent-based parentage as controlling when genetics and birth do not align in one woman. In practice, courts then confirm parentage through orders that hospitals and other states often honor under full faith and credit principles.

A Supreme Court denial without comment creates no precedent: no ruling on surrogacy contracts, fetal rights, or state custody laws. The Texas order stands solely due to non-intervention, not endorsement.https://t.co/yjO3t6dpMy

— NewsWhat (@NewsWhatHQ) September 23, 2026

This case highlights the clash between state lines, contracts, and a medical crisis. The baby’s condition heightened the stakes, while the contract and the California parentage order shaped legal control. With the Supreme Court staying out, the system points back to state law and valid parentage orders. For families, doctors, and the child, that means the intended parents call the shots, and the surrogate’s role is limited unless a lower court reopens the issues or parties reach a new agreement.