A California couple involved in an escalating legal battle with their surrogate over a newborn with a life-threatening heart defect testified in a Texas court on Tuesday, August 25, 2026. Nausheen Gilkar and her husband, Omar Ahmed, appeared in the Dallas courtroom to contest efforts to deny them parental rights, expressing deep anguish over the situation. The couple, who named the newborn Rumi, are currently facing a high-profile dispute with their surrogate, McKenna West, who refers to the child as Gabriel.
During the hearing, Gilkar became emotional on the witness stand, stating, “He’s our child,” while wiping away tears. She described West as “unstable” and accused her of attempting to take the baby from them. The couple has already secured a restraining order that prevents West from seeing or holding the infant. According to court documents filed by the couple’s attorney prior to the hearing, the newborn is in critical condition and has been suffering from potential complications following a medical procedure performed after his birth.
The infant suffers from hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a congenital defect where one side of the heart is underdeveloped, preventing normal blood flow. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this condition affects fewer than 1,000 newborns annually and can be fatal within days or weeks without treatment. Gilkar testified that the baby had no blood flow to the left side of his heart and, since undergoing surgery, has required a blood transfusion, struggled to breathe, and choked on medical tubes. “He’s the most beautiful person I’ve ever seen,” Gilkar said. “He’s the love of our lives. He’s suffering a lot.”
The dispute has drawn significant attention from right-to-life groups and GOP officeholders, as West, a nurse who traveled from Alaska to give birth on August 12, chose to do so in Texas, where most abortions are banned. West testified that she was 23 weeks pregnant when the couple urged her to have an abortion due to the diagnosis, but she felt uncomfortable with the request. “I knew that this baby, despite the diagnosis, had a great chance at survival and a great chance at leading a long life,” West told the court.
West and her legal team are seeking sole conservatorship to make medical decisions for the child, arguing that the couple was not committed to ensuring the baby received necessary life-saving care. During cross-examination, West’s attorney, Jeff Domen, pressed Gilkar on the couple’s previous request to terminate the pregnancy. When asked if she regretted that decision, Gilkar said she did not. When asked by Domen, “Would you trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead?” Gilkar replied that she did not know how to respond.
West told the court that if the judge finds the couple is committed to the baby receiving the required surgeries, she would be willing to drop her custody claims. The judge did not issue a final ruling on custody or conservatorship on Tuesday, and the existing restraining order remains in effect. The couple’s attorney noted that California court records have already determined West has no legal or physical custody rights, though West urged the judge to disregard that ruling.
Gilkar explained that she entered into the surrogacy contract in August 2025 after undergoing eight rounds of in vitro fertilization in Los Angeles. She stated that her body “gave up” and she required a hysterectomy, making surrogacy her only option. She recalled being present with West during the IVF transfer, saying, “I was holding her hand.” Because surrogacy is not regulated at the federal level, experts note that varying state laws often leave gaps in interpretation, which Domen cited when stating, “We believe Ms. West is the mother of this child.”
