The dispute began in April, when an ultrasound revealed that the unborn baby had a severe heart abnormality. The surrogacy agreement between West and California couple Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed contained a provision allowing a termination if an anomaly was discovered during the pregnancy. After receiving the diagnosis, the couple asked West to terminate the pregnancy. She refused.
West instead traveled from Alaska to Texas, where she expected state law to give her stronger protections as the woman who would give birth to the child. Her decision transformed what had begun as a private surrogacy arrangement into a complicated interstate fight involving abortion, parental rights, medical decisions and the enforceability of surrogacy contracts.
The baby was born prematurely in the Dallas area Wednesday, weeks before West’s original September due date. He immediately required specialized medical attention because of his heart condition. Doctors are expected to perform a series of procedures, beginning with the Norwood procedure, a major operation commonly used to treat newborns with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
But while the newborn is now receiving care, the question of who has authority over him has become even more complicated. The biological parents, Gilkar and Ahmed, currently have custody of the baby, according to their attorney. They have reportedly chosen a different name for him, while West remains legally barred from seeing or holding the child under a temporary restraining order.
That court order prevents West from making medical decisions for the infant, removing him from the hospital, representing herself as his parent or interfering with the biological parents’ access. The restrictions are scheduled to remain in effect until at least an August 25 hearing in Dallas County.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has also entered the dispute, backing emergency measures designed to ensure the newborn receives life-saving medical treatment. A court order requires the hospitals caring for the baby to provide medically indicated stabilizing and life-sustaining treatment and prevents the child from being removed from the state while the legal fight continues.
West’s attorney, meanwhile, is preparing for an aggressive legal challenge. Her legal team argues that the abortion provision in the surrogacy agreement should not be enforceable and contends that because West gave birth in Texas, she should be recognized as the child’s legal mother under Texas law. Her lawyer has even indicated that the fight could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The biological parents have a dramatically different account. Their attorney says they were devastated by the baby’s diagnosis and that their priority now is spending time with their son and ensuring he receives the specialized treatment recommended by his doctors. They have also criticized the way the private family dispute has become a highly public political battle.
At the center of the dispute is a question with potentially enormous consequences for surrogacy agreements across the United States: when a contract gives intended parents the right to request a termination after a serious fetal diagnosis, can a surrogate legally refuse — and who ultimately has parental authority once that child is born?
For now, the newborn remains in the hospital receiving specialized care while both sides prepare for the next court battle. And with the August 25 hearing approaching, the most consequential decision may no longer concern the pregnancy itself, but who will have the legal power to decide what happens to the child after birth
