The biological parents of Baby Gabriel have filed a lawsuit seeking more than $100,000 from surrogate McKenna West, alleging she breached their surrogacy agreement by refusing to terminate the pregnancy after the child was diagnosed with a serious heart condition.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The biological parents of a baby born through surrogacy are suing the woman who carried him for more than $100,000 after she refused their demand to terminate the pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of a serious congenital heart defect.
Alaska nurse and mother of two McKenna West gave birth Aug. 12 in Texas after declining an abortion sought by California couple Nasheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, the biological parents of the child West calls Gabriel and they call Rumi.
The dispute began after the unborn boy was diagnosed at approximately 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a condition that can require multiple surgeries.
According to the lawsuit obtained by TMZ, Gilkar and Ahmed allege that West violated their surrogacy contract when she refused to undergo an abortion and instead traveled to Texas before giving birth.
The agreement reportedly provided West $60,000 and included a provision allowing the biological parents to request termination of the pregnancy if fetal abnormalities were identified.
Gilkar and Ahmed are seeking more than $100,000 in damages, along with additional unspecified compensation for conduct they characterize as “malicious, outrageous conduct.”
West has maintained that she could not agree to end the pregnancy and has framed the case as a dispute over whether a contractual provision can compel a surrogate to undergo an abortion.
“Every life matters. No woman should be forced to end the life of the baby she is carrying — including me … Baby Gabriel should receive a chance at life,” West told The New York Post.
After rejecting the termination request, West traveled to Texas, where she sought to establish parental rights under state law.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened with emergency orders intended to protect the infant’s medical care after birth.
The biological parents later obtained temporary physical custody while the baby receives specialized treatment.
West’s attorney has said Gilkar and Ahmed stopped making payments under the surrogacy agreement after she refused to undergo the abortion.
Her legal team has indicated that she is prepared to continue litigating the dispute, potentially through higher courts, while seeking parental rights under Texas law.
Under the legal position advanced by West, the woman who gives birth is presumed to be the legal mother under Texas law.
The biological parents dispute her claim to parental status and contend that the surrogacy agreement governs the relationship.
The case therefore raises two separate but interconnected questions: whether West breached an enforceable contractual obligation by refusing the abortion request and who holds legal parental rights over the child after his birth.
Reproductive-law experts have said West may face significant legal obstacles under conventional surrogacy arrangements, though the dispute has also generated broader debate over whether a contract can require a surrogate to terminate a pregnancy against her wishes.
The underlying medical condition has further complicated the case.
Hypoplastic left heart syndrome affects development of the left side of the heart and typically requires extensive medical treatment, including multiple surgeries.
The condition can be survivable with appropriate care, according to the account of the case, though the child faces serious medical challenges.
West offered to take full responsibility for Gabriel and release Gilkar and Ahmed from future obligations, according to the account.
The biological parents declined that proposal.
West’s side has also alleged that Gilkar and Ahmed favored palliative care rather than aggressive treatment after birth and pursued legal action in multiple jurisdictions in an effort to control decisions surrounding the pregnancy and delivery.
Those claims remain part of an ongoing legal dispute and have not been finally adjudicated.
After West gave birth in Texas, Paxton obtained protections restricting the infant’s removal from the state absent medical necessity.
Gilkar and Ahmed subsequently secured temporary physical custody while the child continues receiving medical care.
Their new lawsuit now seeks damages from West despite their having obtained temporary custody.
The parents contend that West’s refusal to follow the termination provision and her decision to leave for Texas constituted a breach of the surrogacy contract.
West maintains that no contractual provision should be enforceable in a way that forces a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion.
The case is still developing, and neither the damages claim nor the competing parental-rights arguments have received a final judicial resolution.
For now, the child remains in specialized medical care while the adults involved continue litigating over the surrogacy agreement, custody and the legal consequences of West’s refusal to terminate the pregnancy.
Original article
Comments