Surrogate who refused abortion asks SCOTUS to intervene as baby could be moved out of Texas

Surrogate McKenna West Appeals to Supreme Court After California Court Declares Parents Legal Parents of Baby with Heart Defect

Alaska—The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to intervene in a high‑stakes surrogacy dispute that has already traveled from Alaska to California and then to Texas, where a baby with a severe congenital heart condition was delivered. Surrogate McKenna West, an Alaska resident who refused an abortion requested by the commissioning parents, has filed an updated brief seeking an emergency stay of the California court’s decision that named the parents as the child’s legal parents.

A Timeline of Legal Battles

The case began when West agreed to carry a pregnancy for a California couple, later known as the commissioning parties. A prenatal ultrasound revealed that the baby had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a serious heart defect that would require extensive surgical intervention and long‑term medical care.

The commissioning parents asked West to terminate the pregnancy. West rejected the request, citing her own medical and ethical convictions, and chose to deliver the baby in Texas—a state with restrictive abortion laws and a network of specialized cardiac care centers. On August 12, West gave birth to the infant in a Texas hospital.

Following the birth, the commissioning parents filed a parentage action in the Los Angeles Superior Court. West entered a special appearance to contest the court’s personal jurisdiction, invoking a forum‑selection clause in the surrogacy agreement that required litigation in Alaska. The California court, however, held that West’s jurisdictional defense and attached exhibits constituted a general appearance—effectively a consent to the court’s jurisdiction. An ex parte judgment of parentage was entered in favor of the commissioning parents, declaring them the legal parents of the baby.

A Texas court subsequently recognized the California ruling, dismissed West from the case with prejudice (preventing her from re‑filing the same claim in that proceeding), and acknowledged the parents as the child’s legal parents.

Supreme Court Emergency Appeal

Last week, West filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, arguing that the case is moving faster than anticipated and that a stay is urgently needed. The updated brief, filed Monday, reiterates her concerns that without a stay the baby could be moved to California for hospice care while she remains unable to participate in decisions about the child’s medical treatment.

West’s brief contends that the California courts violated federal due process by treating her jurisdictional defense as consent. She is requesting an administrative stay of the California judgment, pending a possible petition for certiorari. The application is due to be heard at 1 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday.

Positions of the Parties

West’s attorneys, from Alliance Defending Freedom and First & Fourteenth PLLC, argue that the surrogacy agreement’s forum‑selection clause binds the parties to Alaska and that the California court overstepped its authority. West also insists that her refusal of the abortion was a moral and legal decision, and that the baby’s life is at stake.

The commissioning parents maintain that California law governs the surrogacy agreement and that the parents are the child’s legal guardians. They also argue that the baby’s medical needs require specialized treatment in California and that West’s refusal to provide consent to the court’s jurisdiction effectively deprived the child of timely care.

Broader Context

The case touches on a broader debate over surrogacy contracts, jurisdictional disputes, and the rights of surrogate mothers versus commissioning parents. It also highlights the complex interplay between state abortion laws and parental rights. The Supreme Court’s involvement—if it grants an emergency stay—could set a precedent for similar cases across the country.

Current Status

As of this week, West’s brief has been filed with the Supreme Court. The Court has not yet issued a decision. The parties await the outcome of the emergency hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Whether the Court will grant the stay could determine whether the baby remains in Texas under West’s care or is transferred to California for ongoing treatment.

The outcome of this case will have implications far beyond a single child, potentially affecting how surrogacy agreements are enforced, how courts interpret jurisdictional clauses, and how states regulate medical decisions involving life‑threatening conditions.