Dallas Judge Ends Alaska Surrogate’s Custody Claim as Supreme Court Pauses Ruling on Infant’s Parentage

A Dallas family court judge has removed an Alaska woman from the legal custody proceedings of a newborn she carried as a surrogate, ruling that she is not the child’s parent. State District Judge Ashley Wysocki affirmed a California court judgment that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, both of Los Angeles, as the infant’s legal parents. According to McKenna West’s own court records, she was dismissed from the case with prejudice in early September.

West, a registered nurse from Anchorage, subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for intervention. Her legal team from Alliance Defending Freedom submitted an emergency application on September 9, seeking to suspend enforcement of the California order while pursuing further appellate review. They argue that the California court lacked proper jurisdiction over the matter. The filing states that a stay is necessary “to preserve the status quo” so that West can remain informed about her child’s well-being. The high court has not yet ruled on the application.

What the Dallas Court Decided and What Remains Sealed

Judge Wysocki ordered all Dallas court records sealed at the request of an attorney appointed to represent the child’s interests, meaning the ruling itself has not been made public. Much of what is known about the decision comes from West’s Supreme Court filing, which means the public currently has access only to one side’s characterization of the proceedings.

The child was born in Dallas on August 12. He was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare congenital condition in which the left side of the heart fails to develop fully, rendering it incapable of pumping blood effectively to the body. The defect was identified approximately 20 weeks into the pregnancy. In the days following birth, he underwent the Norwood procedure, an open-heart surgery that is typically the first of three operations required to manage the condition. Ahmed and Gilkar have named him Rumi. West and her attorneys refer to him as Gabriel.

Ahmed sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting West from seeing the child, making medical decisions on his behalf, or removing him from the hospital. The order was granted following a hearing on August 25 and remains in effect. West’s filing further alleges that the child could be transferred to California for hospice care around September 17; however, that claim appears solely in her application and has not been independently verified.

Why the State of Delivery Became Central

Parentage in surrogacy arrangements is governed entirely by state law, and those statutes vary considerably. Some states recognize gestational agreements in advance and issue pre-birth parentage orders naming the intended parents. Others default to treating the person who gives birth as the legal parent unless a contrary order exists, and a handful of states restrict or refuse to enforce compensated surrogacy contracts.

This patchwork of state laws is why the location of delivery became the pivotal issue. West traveled to Texas to give birth in July and sought sole conservatorship in that state. Her attorneys contend that under Texas law she would ordinarily be presumed the child’s mother by virtue of having given birth. However, Ahmed and Gilkar had already obtained recognition of their parental rights in California, and an Alaska court granted full faith and credit to that California judgment in June. The Dallas court’s deference follows the well-established principle that states honor sister-state family law orders — it is not a judgment on the ethics of the underlying dispute.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened days before the birth and obtained an order requiring a Dallas hospital to provide life-saving treatment. He withdrew from the case on August 19, stating that his office had secured the medical care the child needed. Judge Wysocki was appointed by Governor Greg Abbott.

Paperwork to Resolve Before an Embryo Transfer

The practical implication of this case is narrow but actionable. Anyone entering into a gestational surrogacy arrangement should establish in writing, before the embryo transfer, which state’s law governs the agreement, whether a pre-birth parentage order will be sought and in which court, and where delivery is planned. Altering the delivery state can fundamentally change which court holds jurisdiction.

Contracts in these arrangements frequently address the protocol in the event a fetal anomaly is detected. The agreement in this case, executed in August 2025 through a Connecticut-based surrogacy agency, contained a provision under which West would terminate the pregnancy if a physician identified a fetal abnormality and the intended parents requested it. Such clauses cannot compel any individual to undergo an abortion, which is one reason disputes of this nature escalate to litigation rather than resolution through arbitration.

Both parties should also clarify who holds medical decision-making authority after delivery, how health records will be shared, and what procedures govern disagreements about a care plan. Independent legal representation for each party is standard practice and mandatory in certain jurisdictions.

At an August hearing in Dallas, Gilkar, 43, testified that she and Ahmed pursued surrogacy after eight unsuccessful cycles of in vitro fertilization and a hysterectomy. She stated that the couple consented to the Norwood procedure as soon as they determined their son was a viable candidate for it, and that they remain committed to the Glenn and Fontan surgeries he will require in subsequent stages of treatment. She further testified that he remained in critical condition, experiencing difficulty breathing and needing a blood transfusion. West testified that she had made at least two abortion appointments following the diagnosis and was uncertain about proceeding, and that she does not trust the couple to continue pursuing aggressive treatment for the child.

Two Legal Tracks Running in Parallel

Two proceedings are advancing simultaneously. The Supreme Court may deny West’s emergency application, grant a stay, or take no immediate action. A denial would leave the existing arrangement intact, and nothing in the filing assures that the Court will grant review. In a separate development, Texas legislators have expressed interest in imposing restrictions on surrogacy in a future session, though any statutory change would apply to future agreements and would not affect this case.

Families currently navigating a surrogacy arrangement should not draw medical or clinical conclusions from this dispute. The relevant lesson concerns documentation and jurisdiction. Anyone with questions about an existing agreement should seek guidance from a family law attorney licensed in the state governing the arrangement.

Source link