Supreme Court rejects request to weigh in on California surrogate case

Sept. 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request to take up a case over a custody battle between a couple and their surrogate.

The case was brought by the surrogate, McKenna West, who is seeking custody of the child she birthed who was born with a heart defect. The defect was detected during an early scan earlier this year and the couple, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar of California, called for West to have an abortion but she went forward with the pregnancy.

West, a nurse in Alaska, traveled to Texas to give birth and for the child to receive treatment for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The life-threatening condition is a congenital heart defect that occurs when the left side of the heart does not properly form during pregnancy.

West was about four months into the pregnancy when the condition was detected.

A court in California ruled that Gilkar and Ahmed are the legal parents of the child. The couple argues that West violated her surrogacy contract. West is calling on the high court to block California’s custody order to allow her time to challenge in the federal court system.

On Tuesday, Justice Elena Kagan, who presides over emergency cases coming from California, denied West’s request. She did not offer an explanation for the decision but the Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to wade into family court matters, particularly when they are questions of state law.

While West and the baby boy received treatment in Texas, a Texas court has affirmed that Gilkar and Ahmed are the child’s legal parents.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had intervened on West’s behalf to grant a court order allowing her and the baby to receive lifesaving medical care but he has since withdrawn himself from the case.

West’s attorneys say that Gilkar and Ahmed seek to prevent the baby from receiving life-saving care and that it may die without legal intervention.

The attorneys for Gilkar and Ahmed said in a filing to the Supreme Court that they have seen to it that the baby receives life-saving care and will continue to do so “for the rest of his life.”