In what’s shaping up to be one of the most complicated bodily autonomy legal battles, a contract has collided with a pregnancy that didn’t go according to plan. A serious fetal diagnosis, a disagreement over whether to terminate the pregnancy, and a move across state lines have turned one family’s dispute into a case with potentially much broader implications.
McKenna West, an Alaskan mother of two, is at the center of it all after she gave birth to a child, whom she named Gabriel, against the wishes of his biological parents, as we previously reported. Now, we’re breaking down the legal stakes after baby Gabriel’s birth.
The Contract Is Only the Beginning
Surrogacy agreements are designed to establish expectations before a pregnancy begins. They can spell out everything from medical care to compensation and the intended parents’ legal relationship with the child. But a contract doesn’t necessarily settle every question that can arise during pregnancy.
According to NBC News, the dispute began after doctors determined around 20 weeks that the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a rare birth defect where the left side of the heart cannot pump blood to the body properly because it is too small. The intended parents sought a termination under the terms of their agreement. But West refused and ultimately traveled to Texas, where she gave birth this week.
RELATED: What In The Actual Hell: CVS Abortion Med Mixup Led To Black Woman’s IVF Termination
That leaves courts with a difficult question: What happens when the terms of a surrogacy agreement conflict with a surrogate’s decision about how her pregnancy should proceed?
How the States Impact the Case
The case becomes even more complicated because it involves multiple states.
The intended parents are in California. The surrogate has ties to Alaska. The child was born in Texas. And each state approaches surrogacy and parentage differently.
There is no single national law governing gestational surrogacy in the country. Instead, families and courts have to navigate an entire system of statutes and court decisions, which makes jurisdiction more than a legal technicality. Depending on which state’s laws are applied, the surrogacy agreement could be interpreted differently. That would ultimately decide who has rights over Gabriel.
Who Gets to Be the Parent?
Then there’s the biggest question at the center of this case: Who is legally recognized as the child’s parent?
In a typical gestational-surrogacy agreement, the intended parents expect to assume legal rights after birth. But when the arrangement itself falls apart, that process can become trickier.
Gabriel’s medical condition adds another layer. While the adults’ legal claims are being sorted out, the child needs ongoing medical care, making the question of decision-making especially urgent. As of now, West is barred from having any contact with Gabriel, according to the New York Post. He’s in the custody of the state.
Why This Case Matters
The dispute raises issues that extend well beyond one surrogacy agreement.
At its core, this case asks how far a contract can reach when it involves pregnancy and medical decisions, and how courts should handle that question when the people involved are subject to different state laws.
For an industry that depends heavily on contracts to establish expectations, the outcome for the world of surrogacy could be significant. It could also spark a broader conversation about whether the current state-by-state approach to surrogacy is reliable enough for cases that don’t fit neatly within one box.
The parties are expected to head to a Dallas court this month to continue the legal battle while Gabriel continues life-saving medical treatment.
