The Texas Supreme Court has dismissed a surrogate’s effort to retain custody of a child she delivered, allowing the biological parents to transfer their medically fragile infant to California for necessary medical care.
On Thursday, the court denied McKenna West’s appeal, which sought to prevent the biological parents from relocating their one-month-old son from Texas to a hospital in Los Angeles, where they reside.
The ruling emphasized that “sustaining the life of the medically fragile child is the paramount concern in this time-sensitive matter,” supporting the claims of Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed. The court referenced medical testimony from the infant’s physician in Texas, which indicated that an “ICU-to-ICU transfer” was essential to ensure the child’s best interests and preserve his life.
Testimonies considered by the Texas Supreme Court included statements from the guardian ad litem assigned to advocate for the child’s interests, as well as doctors from Children’s Hospital in Dallas, where the infant is currently receiving treatment. Both provided evidence during an August 25 hearing, although details of the trial court proceedings have since been sealed from public access.
A brief submitted by guardian ad litem Susan Duesler highlighted that the infant’s doctor advocated for surgeries to be conducted in Los Angeles. Delaying the transfer, the doctor warned, could result in “much more complicated treatment” for the baby. Duesler asserted that the child, whom the biological parents have named Rumi, should receive the recommended medical care, which may include relocation to California.
“The Guardian Ad Litem testified that the Parents have followed the recommendations of the doctors to a T, and there are unequivocally no concerns regarding the Parents’ medical decision-making,” the couple’s legal representatives noted in their submission to the Supreme Court.
The parents’ attorneys further clarified that hospice care is not part of the infant’s current medical plan.
Since Rumi’s birth in Dallas on August 12, he has been at the center of a high-profile custody dispute that escalated after West traveled to Texas, a state with strict abortion laws, in an attempt to gain custody. West claimed she sought sole conservatorship to make medical decisions for Rumi, alleging that Ahmed and Gilkar pressured her into considering an abortion due to the child’s diagnosis of a serious heart condition.
Rumi, diagnosed in utero with an underdeveloped heart affecting normal blood flow, has already undergone one surgery and is expected to require additional procedures. The biological parents have successfully defended their custody rights in legal battles across California, Alaska, and Texas. While they acknowledged past considerations of terminating the pregnancy, they are now fully committed to focusing on Rumi’s health and treatment. Gilkar explained in court that the couple pursued surrogacy following eight unsuccessful in vitro fertilization attempts and her subsequent hysterectomy.
“While McKenna West has been conducting a publicity tour, Rumi’s parents have been quietly caring for their child and adhering to the recommendations of Rumi’s medical team,” stated Lee Budner, the couple’s attorney.
West’s legal representative did not provide an immediate response to inquiries for comment.
Furthermore, Rumi’s parents have submitted a heavily redacted response to West’s request for intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court. Gilkar and Ahmed contend that the case has already been resolved and falls outside the jurisdiction of the higher court. Should the Supreme Court choose to intervene and favor West, it could disrupt Rumi’s medical care and create chaos.
“West’s requested stay by the United States Supreme Court threatens the continuity of Rumi’s medical care,” Budner remarked. “A stay would not alter who Rumi’s parents are; it would merely introduce confusion over medical decision-making authority and compromise the ability of healthcare providers to depend on the parents’ consent for Rumi’s treatment.”
