Supreme Court declines to intervene in surrogate baby custody battle

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to intervene in a multistate custody battle between a California couple and the surrogate who gave birth to their son after refusing a request to terminate the pregnancy.Justice Elena Kagan denied an emergency request from McKenna West, an Alaska nurse who sought to block a California court order recognizing Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the legal parents of the baby. Kagan, who handles the emergency matters arising from California, did not provide an explanation for the decision, as is customary.The dispute began after West entered into a surrogacy agreement with Ahmed and Gilkar in 2025. West became pregnant with the couple’s child, but an anatomy scan at about 20 weeks found the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital defect in which the left side of the heart underdeveloped. The diagnosis touched off the dispute that eventually stretched across several states.West, an Alaska resident, traveled to Texas to prepare to get treatment for the unborn baby’s heart defect upon his birth, even though Gilkar and Ahmed allegedly asked West to abort the baby. The couple tried to have West deliver the baby in California, but refused to agree to allow the baby to receive lifesaving treatment for his heart condition after birth.Gilkar and Ahmed went to court in California and obtained a ruling recognizing them as the child’s legal parents.The surrogate gave birth Aug. 12 in Dallas. She and her supporters call the baby boy Gabriel, while Ahmed and Gilkar named him Rumi. He underwent surgery shortly after birth and will require additional treatment for his heart condition.A Texas court ultimately recognized the California parentage judgment and dismissed West from the custody proceedings. West then turned to the Supreme Court, arguing she should have the ability to advocate the child’s medical care and raising concerns that his parents could discontinue treatment. Ahmed and Gilkar rejected that assertion, telling the court they have remained with their son in intensive care and are committed to providing necessary treatment.VIRGINIA’S EXTREMIST ABORTION VOTETexas Attorney General Ken Paxton waded into the legal fight shortly before the baby’s birth, obtaining an emergency order requiring the baby to receive medically necessary care and temporarily preventing the child from being removed from Texas. Paxton accused the intended parents of refusing lifesaving treatment, an allegation their attorney disputed.Paxton has since withdrawn from the proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the California parentage ruling in place in a legal fight that was placed at the center of the fight over abortion and the legal standing of surrogates.