A 28-year-old Alaska nurse who defied a California couple's demand to terminate a surrogate pregnancy is now fighting to see the infant she carried, and says she held him for just 60 seconds before he was removed from her arms.
McKenna West gave birth on August 12 at a Texas hospital she had chosen specifically because she believed it could save the baby's life. The boy was diagnosed at 20 weeks with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe but treatable heart condition. When the biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, learned of the diagnosis, West says they ordered her to end the pregnancy. She refused, and the legal and personal fallout has only escalated since.
The day before the birth, West secured a legal victory in a Dallas family district court. An associate judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing anyone from withholding or obstructing the infant's necessary medical treatment and appointed a legal guardian to ensure the child receives care. But that same order forbids West from having any contact with the baby she carried for nine months.
In an op-ed published by the New York Post, West described the moments after delivery in stark terms:
"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."
She added:
"I haven't been allowed to hold this precious baby boy I carried and protected throughout my pregnancy."
West, a cardiac nurse by training, wrote that she understood the gravity of the diagnosis but believed the child had a genuine shot at survival. She said she found a Texas hospital with what she described as a "100% survival rate" for the procedure the infant would need. That figure is West's characterization; no independent verification of the hospital's surgical outcomes appears in the available reporting.
The infant has since undergone his first surgery, West said. Gilkar and Ahmed, meanwhile, have custody of the boy and have named him Rumi, TMZ reported. The couple told TMZ they are working with medical professionals.
Gilkar and Ahmed paid West $60,000 under a surrogacy contract that included a clause requiring her to abort in the event of a fetal "anomaly." When the 20-week ultrasound revealed the heart defect, the couple invoked that clause. West would not comply.
She wrote that "no threat or amount of money could sway my conviction that this baby had a real chance at a full life," and that she "could not participate in killing him."
After she refused, West says the couple cut off her medical support. She paid for the rest of the pregnancy herself, researched hospitals across Texas, and relocated from Alaska to give birth in a facility she believed could treat the baby's condition. Breitbart reported that the biological parents had threatened to sue West for $250,000 if she refused to abort, and that the case triggered legal proceedings in both Alaska Superior Court and the California Second District Court of Appeal before West moved to Texas.
West's attorney, Lincoln Wilson, told the New York Post that the couple "haven't given her anything" since she decided to keep the child. Wilson said West is now preparing to launch her own legal battle to become the child's legal parent.
The biological parents filed a lawsuit against West seeking more than $100,000 in damages for alleged breach of contract. In court filings, they described West's conduct as "malicious, outrageous" and claimed she is "no stranger to pregnancies and knew that complications could arise."
West has pushed back firmly against the framing that she is trying to take someone else's child. In her op-ed, she wrote:
"Today, that same story is playing out in US courts. Two sides are in a dispute, but only one of us is committing to lifesaving care."
She also alleged that Gilkar and Ahmed are seeking a court order that would halt the rest of the infant's treatment, a claim that has not been confirmed by court documents in the available reporting. West's stated position is straightforward: she wants the baby to receive the full course of medical care his condition requires.
"My plea, my only goal, is simple: Let's commit to giving this baby the full treatment he needs to live."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is also a U.S. Senate candidate, submitted a brief to the Dallas court arguing that state law requires physicians to provide medically necessary treatment. The specific statute Paxton's office cited has not been publicly identified in the reporting. But the brief carried weight: less than 24 hours after West's petition, the associate judge issued the temporary restraining order and appointed the legal guardian.
That guardian's name has not been made public. The guardian's role, as described in the court order, is to ensure the infant receives all necessary treatments, a mandate that, for the moment, appears to be the only legal guarantee standing between the baby and the possibility that care could be withdrawn.
One detail in the broader reporting underscores how far West was willing to go. Breitbart reported that West offered to relinquish all parental rights if Gilkar and Ahmed would simply agree to pursue life-saving surgery for the baby she calls Gabriel. The couple did not accept.
West framed her position in her op-ed not as a custody grab but as a moral stand. She wrote that she referred to the child as "Baby Gabriel" and described the "ongoing treatment his fragile heart requires" as non-negotiable. Her willingness to give up any legal claim, provided the child received care, complicates the biological parents' portrayal of her actions as purely self-interested or contractually reckless.
Several critical facts remain unclear. No reporting has identified the Texas hospital where the birth and first surgery took place. The infant's current medical status is unknown beyond West's statement that the first surgery occurred. Whether West has formally filed her counter-lawsuit or is still preparing it is unclear, Wilson described it as forthcoming. And Gilkar and Ahmed have not made direct public statements beyond their lawsuit filings and the TMZ report; their side of the story, in their own words, remains largely unheard.
What is clear is the trajectory. A woman agreed to carry a child for a couple. A diagnosis changed the calculus. The couple wanted an abortion. The surrogate refused, relocated across the country, found a hospital, petitioned a court, won a restraining order, and then watched the baby she fought for taken from her arms in under a minute.
Surrogacy contracts can spell out nearly every contingency. But no clause can settle the question at the center of this case: whether a contract can compel a woman to end a life she believes can be saved, and whether the people who wrote that clause should be the ones deciding if the child gets to keep living.
