![\"Nausheen](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787755932_978_.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\nA Dallas judge will decide which of the parties in a high-profile, multistate parentage case can make medical decisions for a newborn baby boy with a serious heart defect: his genetic parents, or the surrogate that gave birth to him.<\/p>\n
Dallas County District Judge Ashley Wysocki heard arguments from attorneys on each side Tuesday, as well as testimony from the child\u2019s genetic mother, Nausheen Gilkar of Los Angeles, and surrogate McKenna West of Anchorage, Alaska.<\/p>\n
Wysocki then extended for 14 days a temporary restraining order preventing West from seeing or making medical decisions for the child while her ultimate ruling is pending. She\u2019s expected to make her decision within the next two weeks while the TRO remains in place.<\/p>\n
Gilkar, her husband Omar Ahmed and their attorneys say the baby\u2019s legal name is Rumi Ali Ahmed, while West and her legal team call him Baby Gabriel.<\/p>\n
Tuesday marked the first time Gilkar spoke about the case publicly. Both women\u2019s testimonies filled in the finer details of a complicated narrative playing out in three different states in a test of abortion, surrogacy, parentage and child custody laws.<\/p>\n
Among the revelations was that West withheld medical records from the couple. Gilkar also said West did not inform them of her move to Texas ahead of time. She called the surrogate \u201cunstable\u201d and said West was trying to take Rumi from them.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe has no right,\u201d Gilkar said through tears. \u201cShe\u2019s making us run from doctor to doctor, state to state with our baby. She\u2019s trying to take him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, after some back and forth between each side\u2019s attorneys and hesitation from West, the surrogate at one point said she would indeed drop her parentage and custody claims \u2014 but later said she would continue fighting.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe is here and he has a birthday because of the fight I put up,\u201d West said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Nausheen Gilkar, right, walks back to the courtroom after a break during a hearing regarding a temporary restraining order against surrogate McKenna West Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, in Dallas.<\/p>\n
Genetic mom speaks<\/p>\n
Gilkar picked the name for her unborn son on her birthday, March 16, about five months before he would be born, she testified. The 43-year-old said she and her husband had been through eight rounds of in vitro fertilization in an attempt to conceive.<\/p>\n
Then her body \u201cgave up,\u201d she said, and she had to have a hysterectomy. Surrogacy became her and Ahmed\u2019s only shot at having children of their own.<\/p>\n
A Connecticut-based surrogacy company connected Gilkar and Ahmed with West a little over a year ago. As part of the surrogacy contract she signed, West \u2014 who has two other young children of her own \u2014 agreed to get an abortion if doctors detected a fetal abnormality and if the intended parents requested she terminate the pregnancy.<\/p>\n
The embryo transfer took place at the same facility Gilkar received IVF treatment, and she and West were holding hands during the procedure, Gilkar said.<\/p>\n
West received medical care in California during her pregnancy and sometimes stayed at Gilkar and Ahmed\u2019s home, Gilkar testified. Then on April 17, when West was about 20 weeks pregnant, the fetus was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.<\/p>\n
Gilkar said on the witness stand \u2014 after first denying it during cross-examination \u2014 that she and her husband requested West get an abortion.<\/p>\n
But Gilkar denied refusing care for the child once he was born. She and Ahmed retained a medical team specializing in pediatric cardiology that can care for Rumi in California, she said.<\/p>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787755933_48_.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n
Screenshot<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
Dallas County court records<\/p>\n
The surrogacy agreement between Nausheen Gilkar, Omar Ahmed and McKenna West signed last year states West would agree to terminate her pregnancy if a physician detected a fetal abnormality. West told a Dallas court despite making at least two separate appointments to get an abortion once the fetus she carried was diagnosed with a heart defect, she was “terrified” at the prospect of terminating the pregnancy.<\/p>\n
Gilkar testified she learned of what\u2019s called the Norwood procedure \u2014 a type of newborn open-heart surgery \u2014 after Rumi was born. The couple immediately agreed to have it done upon learning Rumi was a candidate, she said. <\/p>\n
Following the procedure, Gilkar said Rumi is struggling to breathe and has received a blood transfusion.<\/p>\n
Gilkar testified she and her husband were committed to pursuing the additional surgeries Rumi needs following the Norwood procedure, namely the Glenn<\/a> and Fontan<\/a> procedures, both also open-heart surgeries.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve never wanted anything more than this baby,\u201d Gilkar said.<\/p>\n West\u2019s attorney Jeff Domen pressed Gilkar on whether she would trust someone with her child who wanted him dead \u2014 referring to the couple\u2019s choice to seek an abortion. Gilkar said she didn\u2019t know how to answer the question <\/p>\n He also asked whether she\u2019d prefer Rumi alive and raised by someone else or dead. West has said she would adopt the child.<\/p>\n Gilkar said that wasn\u2019t West\u2019s decision to make.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s all about my son,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s all about my son getting the care he needs.\u201d<\/p>\n Surrogate McKenna West leaves at the end of the hearing regarding a temporary restraining order Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, in Dallas.<\/p>\n West\u2019s account<\/p>\n West, 28, acknowledged she is not Rumi\u2019s genetic parent \u2014 but testified she wanted to give him a chance at life.<\/p>\n West said she had felt Rumi start to move in her womb beginning 16 or 17 weeks into the pregnancy. She started researching potential treatments for the child the same day she, Ahmed and Gilkar received the diagnosis. But over the weekend following the diagnosis, West said, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy.<\/p>\n West said she started bringing up hospitals in Texas days after the diagnosis. She chose Texas, she said, because she has friends in the state that she could stay with to alleviate the cost for Ahmed and Gilkar.<\/p>\n But West got a phone call from someone at the surrogacy agency informing her of the couple\u2019s decision. West scheduled at least two abortion appointments \u2014 one in Seattle, another in California \u2014 and canceled both because she said she couldn\u2019t go through with the procedure. The idea was \u201cterrifying,\u201d who cried briefly during her testimony.<\/p>\n \u201cI knew that this baby, despite the diagnosis, had a great chance at survival and a great chance at living a long, meaningful life,\u201d West testified.<\/p>\n After that, she said the couple\u2019s demands increased. West alleged Ahmed and Gilkar\u2019s lawyer and her own former lawyer sent her letters threatening her with liabilities she could face if she didn\u2019t schedule the abortion. They offered to pay her another month if she rescheduled the procedure.<\/p>\n West confirmed she withheld medical documents from the couple. After West moved to Texas July 15, she said Ahmed and Gilkar wanted her to leave and go to California to deliver.<\/p>\n A friend put West in contact with the anti-abortion group Live Action. Among her attorneys are members of the anti-abortion Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.<\/p>\n West said last she checked, a friend had raised about $128,000 through an online fundraiser titled \u201cHelp McKenna Fight for Baby Gabriel’s Life\u201d \u2014 using the name West chose for the baby. The money is meant to alleviate her legal fees and medical bills.<\/p>\n West wrote in a New York Post op-ed last week the genetic parents\u2019 commitment to providing life-saving care for the child was “all it would take to end this.\u201d<\/p>\n But despite Gilkar\u2019s testimony, West said she doesn\u2019t trust the couple will continue seeking medical care \u2014 because Gilkar said she doesn\u2019t regret wanting West to get an abortion.<\/p>\n The California couple\u2019s attorney Lee Budner asked West why the couple couldn\u2019t change their minds about the abortion if she did.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t know that they have,\u201d West responded.<\/p>\n Guardian ad litem Susan Duesler walks out of the courtroom after a hearing regarding a temporary restraining order Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, in Dallas.<\/p>\n Legal arguments<\/p>\n A decision in the case comes down to whether West has the legal standing to make her custody claims and whether the surrogacy agreement and the June 22 California order establishing Gilkar and Ahmed as Rumi\u2019s legal parents are valid in Texas.<\/p>\n But aside from the legal arguments, neither side hesitated to lean into the abortion debate central to the case.<\/p>\n Domen, West\u2019s attorney, said Texas family law is clear: Because West gave birth, West is Rumi\u2019s mother. An exception exists for surrogacy, but Domen argued the surrogacy contract at issue wasn\u2019t validated in Texas, therefore the exception doesn\u2019t apply. <\/p>\n He also argued because the child was born in Texas, only Texas has jurisdiction over the custody issue.<\/p>\n \u201c(West) didn\u2019t want to raise a child. She entered into a contract to have a child and then give it away,\u201d Domen said. \u201cBut when she heard that the choice was to murder the child, she made a decision \u2014 not one that any of us would have wanted to make.\u201d<\/p>\n Budner argued the case is a matter of parentage, not child custody, and a California judge already deemed Gilkar and Ahmed as Rumi\u2019s parents, expressly excluding West from parental authority. The U.S. Constitution requires \u201cfull faith and credit\u201d be given to the California order, Budner said.<\/p>\n Budner accused West of looking for the most favorable jurisdiction to bring her claims and relitigate issues decided in both Alaska and California.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat they want to do is rewrite the Texas Family Code, rewrite the Constitution, eradicate surrogacy, period,\u201d Budner said. \u201cAnd they\u2019re asking this court to do that.\u201d<\/p>\n An attorney for Children\u2019s Health, which has been involved in Rumi\u2019s care, told the court the hospital needs clarity on how to proceed with care in light of court orders requiring life-saving care regardless of his genetic parents\u2019 decisions.<\/p>\n Susan Duesler, the court-appointed attorney for Rumi, said she was narrowly focused on the best interests of the child. While she said both sides have been cooperative, Duesler rebuked West for writing an op-ed and publicizing the case.<\/p>\n The attorney filed a successful motion to seal the case proceedings.<\/p>\n \u201cThe same actions involved in the three states’ cases could have been done privately and could have occurred without me in it,\u201d she said. \u201cWithout press releases, without podcasts, without hundreds of thousands of public comments from people who do not have all the facts in this case and who will never meet Rumi.\u201d<\/p>\n Toluwani Osibamowo is KERA\u2019s law and justice reporter. Got a tip? Email Toluwani at\u00a0tosibamowo@kera.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"Surrogate](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787755933_384_.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Guardian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787755935_499_.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n