Parents Sue Surrogate for $100K After She Refused Abortion for Baby With Heart Defect
Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, a California couple, are suing their former surrogate, McKenna West, for over $100,000 in damages following her refusal to terminate a pregnancy after a fetal heart defect diagnosis. The surrogate, who relocated to Texas to carry the child to term, is now seeking legal parentage.
The Breach of Contract Allegation
The legal dispute centers on a contract signed between the biological parents and West, a 28-year-old nurse from Alaska. According to reports, the agreement included a specific clause requiring the surrogate to undergo an abortion in the event of a fetal anomaly. When a 20-week scan revealed the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome—a condition where the left side of the heart is underdeveloped—Gilkar and Ahmed reportedly invoked this provision. The couple, who had paid $60,000 for the surrogacy arrangement, maintained that the termination was necessary given the medical risks.
West, however, declined to follow the directive. She sought second opinions and researched the condition, finding that specialized surgical intervention in Dallas offered a high success rate for the specific heart defect. Following her refusal, she moved to Texas. The biological parents filed their lawsuit weeks before the birth, alleging “malicious, outrageous conduct” and a breach of the contractual agreement.
Jurisdictional Conflicts and Parental Rights
The birth of the child, now named Rumi by the biological parents and previously referred to as “Baby Gabriel” by the surrogate, occurred on August 12. While the infant is currently in the custody of Gilkar and Ahmed, the legal battle over parentage is intensifying. West’s attorney, Lincoln Wilson, stated that his client intends to challenge the custody arrangement, asserting that under Texas law, the woman who gives birth to a child holds a claim to legal parentage.
The Financial and Emotional Fallout
The financial impact of the surrogacy breakdown is substantial. Gilkar and Ahmed claim that West’s actions caused them severe emotional distress, in addition to the loss of their initial investment. Conversely, West has reported that she was effectively cut off by the couple once she decided to proceed with the pregnancy. Her legal team is preparing to launch a counter-argument to establish her rights as a parent, citing the birth location as a primary factor in her standing.
As the case proceeds, the couple continues to manage the infant’s medical care.
The conflict remains an active legal matter. As West prepares her filing for parentage, the courts will be tasked with weighing the sanctity of the initial contract against the realities of parental rights established at birth.