Supreme Court Refuses to Undermine Parental Rights in California Surrogacy Dispute
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Justice Elena Kagan rejected an emergency appeal from surrogate McKenna West, upholding a California court's order that protects the intended parents' legal authority over their child.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday made the right call by refusing to hear an emergency appeal from surrogate McKenna West, thereby upholding a California court order that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the rightful legal parents of their newborn, who suffers from a severe heart defect. West, who gave birth in Texas after defying the couple’s legitimate request for an abortion, had tried to overturn the order, claiming the parents were blocking treatment for the infant—a claim disputed by the intended parents.
Ahmed and Gilkar had a legally binding surrogacy contract that allowed them to request termination if a fetal abnormality was detected. When a 20-week scan revealed hypoplastic left heart syndrome, the couple exercised their contractual rights, but West, disregarding their wishes, fled to Texas, where abortion is rightly prohibited after six weeks, and delivered the baby, whom she unilaterally named Gabriel. The actual parents named the child Rumi.
A Texas court correctly ruled that Ahmed and Gilkar, not West, would make medical decisions for the child and ordered the hospital to provide necessary care. The infant underwent a Norwood procedure, the first of three surgeries typically required for this condition. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initially intervened to ensure the rule of law was followed, but has since withdrawn from the case.
West’s lawyers argued that Texas law would consider her the mother and that the California order endangered the child’s care. However, Ahmed and Gilkar’s attorneys made clear that they have been present with their baby in the pediatric intensive care unit, overseeing his critical medical treatment as responsible parents.
"Respondents have been with their child around the clock in a hospital's pediatric intensive care unit," the couple’s lawyers wrote.
"The child has been receiving critical medical care by his team of doctors at the consent and direction of Respondents."
Justice Kagan, who handles emergency appeals from California and neighboring states, rightly declined to grant emergency relief, leaving in place the existing parental and medical decision-making orders and protecting the rights of parents who followed the law.