For families facing fertility struggles, a surrogate can offer what once felt impossible: the opportunity to have a child of their own.
Gestational surrogacy, considered to be both a legal and medical arrangement, means the carrier has no genetic tie to the baby, with the intended parents' eggs and/or sperm used for the embryo.
In the US, it is estimated that between 2,000 to 3,000 babies are born via surrogacy annually – with the number only continuing to grow.
A typical surrogacy journey costs anywhere from $150,000 to $220,000, with experienced surrogates earning $60,000 to $110,000 plus, according to the Egg Donor and Surrogacy Institute.
Recently, however, gaps in surrogacy laws have paved the way for bitter disputes between surrogate mothers and intended parents - particularly when there's a clash over whether the baby should be terminated.
Nurse McKenna West, from Alaska, was hired to serve as a surrogate for a couple in California and began a desperate battle to save the life of the unborn baby she was carrying.
West, a single mother of two young children, had applied to Connecticut-based Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC last year and met a couple whom she felt would be a 'perfect match,' she told Live Action.
West moved forward with the surrogacy, became pregnant, and was given a due date of September 2, 2026.
Most recently, nurse McKenna West, based in Alaska, began a desperate battle to save the life of the unborn baby she was carrying
On August 12, West gave birth to a baby boy who is currently in the custody of his biological parents
But at her 20-week ultrasound, a doctor informed her and the biological parents 'there was something really wrong with the baby's heart,' as no blood was flowing through the left side.
West was referred to a maternal-fetal medicine doctor, who diagnosed the baby with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. This condition can often be remedied with surgery immediately after birth.
But it was then that the baby's biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, raised the idea of an abortion, according to West.
'I knew that I didn't want to have to go through it. I didn't want for this baby - for his life to be cut short,' she said.
The parents, who paid West $60,000 to carry their child, told her she would have to terminate the pregnancy, but she refused, packed up her bags and relocated to Texas, as its state law recognizes anyone who gives birth in the state as the legal mother of that child.
On August 12, West gave birth to a baby boy, who is currently in the custody of his biological parents.
But it was revealed on Tuesday that the newborn, who the couple has named Rumi, is in critical condition after undergoing complex heart surgery known as the Norwood Procedure, court documents obtained by TMZ stated.
'Serious medical developments have arisen that impact the health and safety of the child. The child is in critical condition and being closely monitored at the hospital,' the court records said.
They claimed that their child appeared to be 'suffering from potential complications from the Norwood and that the child's condition declined significantly, requiring re-intubation,' the report said.
The baby's health update came as the couple from California were set to attend a court hearing on Tuesday to request a restraining order against West.
They were granted custody of their child, but West has also filed for custody after the parents told her to terminate the pregnancy following the baby's diagnosis.
Because of the baby's health update, Gilkar and Ahmed have asked the court to push the hearing on the restraining order, the outlet reported.
It comes after the couple slapped their surrogate with a lawsuit over her 'malicious, outrageous conduct,' TMZ reported.
The suit, which was filed against West weeks before she gave birth to the child, has asked a judge to award Gilkar and Ahmed over $100,000 in damages from West for breaching the contract she signed with them.
When West, who is not thought to have been a surrogate before, agreed to carry the baby, she signed a contract which included a clause specifying that she would abort the baby in the event of an 'anomaly.'
Gilkar and Ahmed claim that West is no stranger to pregnancies and knew that complications could arise, the legal filing stated, per the outlet.
They have also denied threatening the surrogate to try to force her to go through with the abortion and said they have suffered emotional distress as a result of her actions.
But Gilkar and Ahmed have now slapped their surrogate with a lawsuit over her 'malicious, outrageous conduct' (stock image)
Speaking about West's legal battle to become the child's legal parent, he said: 'She is seeking parentage of the child because she gave birth in Texas, and in Texas, if you give birth to a child, it's your child.'
The couple's attorney, Lee Budner, previously addressed the situation in a statement, in which he shared that the couple 'immediately provided consent' for Rumi to undergo surgery related to his heart syndrome 'at the hospital's earliest availability.'
'Rumi is now recuperating under the loving care of his parents and his heroic team of doctors, nurses, and medical staff,' it read. 'His condition remains critical and complex, and his family seeks privacy in caring for their son on his long road to recovery.'
'Ms. West continues to assert baseless claims for custody of Rumi, in violation of multiple court orders out of both Alaska and California.
'We look forward to quickly defeating those claims as Rumi's parents continue to focus on his health and safety above all else.'
But West's case is not unique.
Earlier this year, a same-sex couple in Canada began suing the surrogate mother of their son, two years after she refused their request to abort the fetus because an ultrasound indicated the baby had a cleft lip, possibly a cleft palate and a minor heart defect.
In the suit filed in Ontario Superior Court in May, the parents alleged the Ontario-based surrogate failed to keep them apprised about the baby's health, put the child at risk and violated their confidentiality, the National Post reported.
The Daily Mail has now spoken to legal experts about the complexities of parental rights when it comes to surrogacies (stock image)
It also claimed that the surrogate caused serious emotional distress, with one of the parents unable to work from July 2, 2024 – when the surrogate refused to have an abortion – until September last year.
The lawsuit does not claim a specific amount of damages, but the surrogate said plaintiffs have indicated they're seeking about $600,000.
'You know I'm a single mom, you know I have a daughter and you're basically suing me for my house,' she said in an interview. 'It seems very s*****, it's just awful.'
'I just feel used,' she continued. 'They didn't get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.'
The statement of claim does not specifically mention the couple's request in June 2024 to terminate the pregnancy at 22 weeks, but both the surrogate and the head of the agency that connected the two parties, Surrogacy Canada Online, said the disagreement was the first sign of any trouble.
The surrogate, a single mother who works as a corrections officer, insisted more tests be conducted, and after specialists indicated that the baby was a healthy child with a relatively minor birth defect, the couple agreed to let the pregnancy continue.
But tensions escalated once again after the woman insisted on having a home birth, as was agreed upon in their contract, and later filed a small claims suit asking the parents to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses related to the pregnancy totaling around $10,000.
Shortly after she filed the small-claims suit, which has since gone to arbitration, the woman said she found out she was being sued.
Jonathan Lancaster, a Toronto-based lawyer for the couple, previously told the National Post that he and his clients declined to comment.
The Daily Mail has contacted Lancaster.
As public interest in both cases grows, the Daily Mail has now spoken to legal experts about the complexities of parental rights when it comes to surrogacies.
Many of the intricacies arise because the US does not regulate surrogacy on a federal level, with each state implementing its own laws about whether it is permitted and how it is governed.
Attorney Andrew Vorzimer, of Vorzimer Masserman Fertility and Family Law in California, told the Daily Mail that these instances remain 'extraordinary.'
Vorzimer, who has handled more than 33,000 surrogacy journeys, said: 'Successful surrogacy is actually pretty boring... Never have I had a single case in which a surrogate sought to keep custody of our clients' baby or refused to follow their instructions when it comes to difficult issues like termination.
'That doesn't mean difficult cases never occur. Of course they do. But an outlier can be heartbreaking, real and still be an outlier.'
He warned against the 'danger' of the 'exception being sold as the rule,' adding: 'We need to be careful about the narrative.'
'The West case involves several states, competing factual accounts and some very unusual procedural circumstances,' Vorzimer continued.
'The Ontario case is frequently described as a lawsuit against a surrogate because she refused an abortion, but the reporting indicates that the lawsuit itself doesn't actually plead her refusal to terminate as the basis of the claim. The allegations involve other conduct that occurred as the relationship deteriorated.'
The expert shared that 'these distinctions matter' before reflecting on the potential consequences that the current legal battles could have.
Vorzimer explained that the outcome of the West litigation could result in 'very interesting interstate jurisdiction and parentage questions.'
'But I would be very surprised if the enduring legal lesson were simply that "surrogates can override parents,"' he added.
The surrogacy expert believes that the lack of federal regulation of surrogacies 'contributes to the complexity' due to a 'patchwork of state surrogacy laws layered on top of dramatically different state abortion laws.'
This is exemplified when someone moves from one jurisdiction to another during a pregnancy, which itself raises questions about 'jurisdiction, parentage and enforcement.'
However, he warned that 'federal regulation isn't a magic wand.'
'No statute can make two people share the same values when confronted with a devastating prenatal diagnosis, and no amount of contract drafting can manufacture agreement where there was a fundamental values conflict from the beginning,' he continued.
Instead, Vorzimer suggested that the real safeguarding against situations such as these comes before any contract is ever signed.
He said that donors and carriers must ensure that they are aligned on fundamental viewpoints before moving forward with the process.
This includes tackling tough subjects such as religion, philosophy, disability, fetal diagnosis, maternal health and when, if ever, someone believes a pregnancy should be terminated.
'The overwhelming lesson from these extraordinary cases shouldn't be that surrogacy doesn't work,' the expert reflected.
'It should be that surrogacy works best when the professionals involved are willing to do the hard work upfront, including occasionally saying no to a match.
'The goal should be to protect access to this remarkable technology while being mature enough to recognize that access comes with responsibility. The difficult questions belong before the pregnancy, not in a courtroom afterward.'
