Dallas Surrogacy Dispute Over Newborn’s Heart Defect Remains Unresolved

Texas court hears competing claims over newborn’s care and parental rights

DALLAS, Texas — A Dallas judge on Tuesday left a restraining order in place and did not immediately decide custody in an increasingly contentious Dallas surrogacy dispute involving a California couple, their surrogate and a newborn with a life-threatening heart defect.

Nausheen Gilkar and her husband, Omar Ahmed, told the court that the infant, whom they call Rumi, is critically ill following surgery for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The couple accused surrogate McKenna West of trying to take parental rights after they had previously asked her to terminate the pregnancy because of the diagnosis.

“He’s our child,” Gilkar said through tears from the witness stand. She described West as unstable and said the surrogate was attempting to take the baby from the intended parents. West, who was seated across the courtroom, has called the child Gabriel and is seeking sole conservatorship to make medical decisions on his behalf.

West flew from Alaska to Texas and gave birth on Aug. 12. After the delivery, Gilkar and Ahmed obtained a restraining order barring West from seeing or holding the child. The order remained in force after Tuesday’s hearing, while the court deferred a final ruling on conservatorship and custody.

Medical crisis at center of court fight

Gilkar testified that the baby had no blood flow to the left side of his heart before surgery. She said he has gasped for air, choked on medical tubes and required a blood transfusion since the procedure. Court documents submitted earlier by the couple’s attorney said the newborn appeared to be suffering potential complications following treatment.

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome is a congenital condition in which the left side of the heart does not develop normally, severely disrupting blood flow. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says fewer than 1,000 babies in the United States are born with the condition each year. Without treatment, it can be fatal within days or weeks.

“He’s the most beautiful person I’ve never seen,” Gilkar told the court. “He’s the love of our lives. He’s suffering a lot.”

West testified that she was 23 weeks pregnant when she made an abortion appointment at the couple’s request, but said she was uncomfortable proceeding. Texas bans most abortions, a legal backdrop that has drawn attention from anti-abortion advocates and Republican officeholders supporting West.

“I knew that this baby, despite the diagnosis, had a great chance at survival and a great chance at leading a long life,” West said.

Dispute turns on surgery commitment and surrogacy agreement

West’s attorneys argued that Gilkar and Ahmed had not shown they were committed to ensuring the baby receives necessary surgeries and other life-saving care. Attorney Jeff Domen repeatedly questioned Gilkar about the couple’s earlier request for an abortion. When asked whether she regretted that decision, Gilkar said she did not.

West told the court that she would abandon her custody request if the judge determined the couple were committed to the child receiving the required surgeries. Her attorney, Lee Budner, said West’s position was based on concerns over the infant’s medical future. “We believe Ms. West is the mother of this child,” Domen said.

Gilkar and Ahmed maintain that West violated a surrogacy agreement signed in August 2025. Gilkar said surrogacy became her only path to parenthood after eight rounds of in vitro fertilization in Los Angeles and a subsequent hysterectomy. She testified that West stayed at the couple’s Los Angeles home and that she held West’s hand during the embryo transfer.

The couple’s lawyer cited California court records finding that West had no legal or physical custody rights. West asked the Texas judge to disregard that determination, saying the fetal diagnosis changed her decision to fight for the child.

Surrogacy arrangements are not governed by a single federal law, and state-by-state rules can produce conflicting legal interpretations when parties live, contract and give birth in different jurisdictions. The Dallas judge had not announced when an order would be issued, and the restraining order preventing West from contact with the newborn remains in effect.