McKenna West said she was separated from the newborn she carried about 60 seconds after giving birth on Aug. 12 in Texas, then watched the case move from a private family dispute into a legal fight shaped by courts, attorneys, and the Texas attorney general. West, an Alaska mother and cardiac nurse, said she had agreed last year to serve as a surrogate for Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar of California, but the arrangement collapsed after the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS, at about 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
West said Ahmed and Gilkar asked her to terminate the pregnancy after the diagnosis. She said she refused. That refusal set off the chain of control that now runs through hospitals, lawyers, and court orders, with the baby’s body and future treated like a case file while the adults around him argue over who gets to decide what happens next.
Who Held the Power
West wrote in a New York Post op-ed Thursday, "I haven’t been allowed to hold this precious baby boy I carried and protected throughout my pregnancy." She added, "The only glimpse I got of him was during a very short 60 seconds while his umbilical cord was still connected. As soon as the cord was cut, he was taken away." Those lines carry the bluntest fact in the story: the woman who carried the child says she was cut off from him almost immediately after birth.
Lee Budner, an attorney for Ahmed and Gilkar, disputed key parts of West's account. He said doctors determined on Aug. 14 that the baby, whom Ahmed and Gilkar call Rumi, was eligible for the Norwood procedure, the first of three open-heart surgeries for newborns commonly used to treat HLHS. Budner said, "My clients immediately provided consent for the surgery to occur at the hospital’s earliest availability."
The baby underwent surgery Aug. 17 and is recuperating under the care of Ahmed, Gilkar and his medical team, Budner said. He said the child's condition "remains critical and complex." The language of care sits right beside the language of control. One side says the baby was taken away. The other says consent came immediately once the medical team made its determination.
What the Courts and Institutions Did
Budner also accused West of continuing to pursue custody despite court rulings, saying, "Meanwhile, Ms. West continues to assert baseless claims for custody of Rumi, in violation of multiple courts orders out of both Alaska and California." He added, "We look forward to quickly defeating those claims as Rumi’s parents continue to focus on his health and safety above all else."
West, who is being represented with assistance from Alliance Defending Freedom, said she is not trying to take someone else's child. "I’m not fighting to try to take someone else’s baby," she wrote Thursday. "I’m fighting because this baby boy needs someone willing to advocate for and fight alongside him as he gets the ongoing treatment his fragile heart requires." That’s the language of a person trying to frame herself as an advocate, not a claimant, even as the legal machinery keeps grinding.
Live Action founder and President Lila Rose, whose organization has supported West, said West intends to continue fighting for custody. "McKenna is fighting for custody because Gabriel needs someone willing to defend him," Rose said. "He deserves to remain protected and receive every chance to heal and live." Rose also questioned Ahmed and Gilkar's account of events leading up to the surgery. "If they were willing for Gabriel to receive the surgery, why did a Texas court have to ensure that he received it under the force of law?" Rose said. "The court intervened, and Gabriel has now received the surgery he desperately needed. Praise God."
Rose also alleged that Ahmed and Gilkar previously declined to consent to the baby's medical care and are now seeking to take him out of Texas. Their attorney disputed West’s characterization of the case and said Ahmed and Gilkar consented to surgery once the baby’s medical team determined he was eligible for the procedure. The fight keeps circling back to the same thing: who gets to decide, and whose decision gets backed by courts.
The State Steps In, Then Steps Back Into the Frame
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton previously intervened in the case, notifying two Texas medical centers of what his office said were their legal obligations to provide medically necessary care after the child was born. That intervention put the state directly into the middle of the dispute, not as a neutral referee but as an enforcer of what it said hospitals had to do.
Budner said the family does not intend to provide further health updates. West said, "My plea, my only goal, is simple: Let’s commit to giving this baby the full treatment he needs to live." Alliance Defending Freedom did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
What’s left is a newborn with a critical and complex condition, adults locked in a custody war, and institutions claiming authority over care, consent, and family. The baby’s body became the site where all of it landed. The rest is paperwork, court orders, and people with titles speaking over one another while the child remains at the center of their fight.