Key facts
- A California couple, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, are in a dispute with their surrogate, McKenna West, over their newborn son, Rumi (named Gabriel by West).
- The child has hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital heart defect.
- The couple testified that the child's condition has worsened since birth and they are anguished by attempts to deny them parental rights.
- The surrogate stated she considered an abortion at the couple's urging after learning of the diagnosis but ultimately did not go through with it.
- The surrogate is seeking sole conservatorship to make medical decisions for the child, arguing the couple initially wanted to terminate the pregnancy.
- A restraining order barring the surrogate from seeing the child remains in effect after the hearing.
A legal battle has erupted in a Texas court between a California couple and their surrogate over a newborn diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition. Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed testified that their son, Rumi, has a severe heart defect and that the surrogate, McKenna West, is attempting to deny them parental rights. Gilkar stated the child's condition has significantly declined since birth, describing his suffering.
West, who is seeking sole conservatorship to make medical decisions for the child, testified that she considered an abortion at the couple's urging after learning of the diagnosis but ultimately chose not to proceed. She expressed belief in the child's potential for survival and a long life. West's attorneys have questioned the couple's commitment to the child's care, citing their initial desire to terminate the pregnancy.
The couple claims West violated their surrogacy contract, which they entered into after Gilkar underwent a hysterectomy. West, however, stated she is willing to fight for the child since the diagnosis and asked the court to disregard a California ruling that determined she has no custody rights. A restraining order preventing West from seeing or holding the newborn remains in effect, as the judge did not issue a final ruling on custody during the hearing.