McKenna West is asking the justices to pause a California parentage judgment while courts consider jurisdiction, custody and treatment decisions involving a child born with a serious heart condition.
An Alaska nurse who refused to abort a child she was carrying under a gestational-surrogacy agreement has taken an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
McKenna West, 28, filed the application after California and Texas courts recognized the commissioning couple as the child’s legal parents. She argues that California lacked personal jurisdiction over her and that the judgment should be paused while she pursues further review.
The case combines difficult questions involving surrogacy contracts, parental rights, state jurisdiction, medical decision-making and the life of a medically vulnerable child.
The Supreme Court has not decided those underlying questions. West’s present request asks the justices for an administrative stay and a stay pending her proposed appeal.
A Diagnosis Changes the Arrangement
According to West’s court filing, a prenatal examination revealed that the child had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital condition in which the left side of the heart does not develop normally.
West says the California couple who commissioned the pregnancy asked her to undergo an abortion. Her application alleges that the request was made under a provision of the surrogacy agreement and that she was warned of substantial financial consequences if she refused.
Those assertions come from West’s filing and have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
West declined the abortion and traveled to Texas, where the child could receive specialized medical care and where she had family support. The boy was born August 12 and underwent the first of a series of staged heart procedures five days later.
West has said she would relinquish physical custody if the commissioning parents guarantee continued treatment. She contends that she fears they could discontinue aggressive care.
The couple disputes West’s portrayal of the case. Their attorneys have maintained that they are the child’s legal parents, that they have already authorized significant medical treatment and that West violated the agreement by leaving for Texas and seeking custody.
Conflicting Proceedings in Three States
The commissioning parents filed a parentage action in California in May. West entered what she says was a limited appearance to dispute jurisdiction, but the California court treated her participation as consent to its authority.
On June 22, that court entered a judgment recognizing the couple as the child’s parents, with enforcement stayed until birth. California appellate courts subsequently declined West’s requests for relief.
West also opened proceedings in Alaska, while litigation over the newborn unfolded in Texas. On September 2, a Dallas County judge enforced the California judgment and dismissed West’s competing custody claim.
Her Supreme Court application centers on whether California could exercise personal jurisdiction over an Alaska resident who says she appeared only to contest that jurisdiction. It also asks whether the judgment should remain enforceable while appellate review continues.
An emergency stay would not make West the permanent legal parent. Denying a stay likewise would not resolve every broader question surrounding the surrogacy agreement.
Why This Matters
Surrogacy can create complex conflicts when a prenatal diagnosis changes what the participating adults expected. Contracts may assign authority, but they cannot eliminate the moral significance of decisions involving an unborn child or erase constitutional requirements for jurisdiction and due process.
The case also underscores the need for clearer safeguards governing medical disagreements, independent legal representation and the rights and responsibilities of surrogates and commissioning parents.
Most importantly, a child with a serious disability is not merely the subject of a contract dispute. His life and care are the human center of the case.
THRIVE! Perspective
Psalm 139 teaches that every human life is known and formed by God. Proverbs 31:8–9 calls God’s people to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
West’s refusal to end the child’s life reflects the conviction that a grave diagnosis does not erase human dignity. At the same time, Proverbs 18:17 warns that one account may appear conclusive until another party is heard.
Christians can defend the child’s life while insisting that courts examine the evidence, jurisdiction and competing claims truthfully. Compassion for a medically vulnerable child and commitment to due process belong together.
