Surrogate Says Newborn Was Taken Moments After Birth as Custody Battle Intensifies

A high-stakes custody dispute is unfolding after an Alaska surrogate refused a request to abort a baby diagnosed with a severe congenital heart condition, and later delivered the child in Texas so he could receive medical treatment.

McKenna West, a cardiac nurse and mother, says the newborn was taken from her approximately 60 seconds after his Aug. 12 birth. She wrote in a New York Post opinion piece that she was never permitted to hold the child, seeing him only briefly before his umbilical cord was cut.

West agreed to carry the baby for California couple Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar. According to West, the intended parents asked her to terminate the pregnancy after doctors diagnosed the child with hypoplastic left heart syndrome around 20 weeks. West refused, choosing instead to continue the pregnancy.

The child, called Gabriel by West and Rumi by Ahmed and Gilkar, underwent the Norwood procedure on Aug. 17. The operation is the first of three surgeries commonly performed to treat the life-threatening condition.

Lee Budner, an attorney representing Ahmed and Gilkar, disputes West’s description of the events. He said doctors determined on Aug. 14 that the newborn qualified for surgery and that his clients immediately authorized the procedure. Budner added that the baby remains in critical condition under the supervision of his parents and medical team.

Budner also accused West of advancing “baseless” custody claims contrary to court orders issued in Alaska and California.

West, who is receiving assistance from Alliance Defending Freedom, maintains that her legal action is about protecting the child—not taking another couple’s baby. Live Action founder Lila Rose said West is pursuing custody because she believes the newborn needs someone committed to defending his life and ensuring continued treatment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton previously entered the dispute, reminding two medical facilities of their legal responsibilities to provide medically necessary care after the child’s birth.

The conflicting accounts remain unresolved, but the central truth is unmistakable: a vulnerable newborn is fighting for his life. As courts consider the competing parental claims, his medical needs must remain paramount. Every child—regardless of disability, diagnosis, or circumstances of birth—deserves protection, compassionate care, and every reasonable opportunity to live.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!