Surrogate Mother’s Legal Battle Reaches U.S. Supreme Court

The surrogate, McKenna West, who refused an abortion requested by the biological parents, has filed an updated brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. Previously, she submitted an emergency application to the court, arguing that her case is progressing more quickly than anticipated.

West, an Alaska resident, is embroiled in a legal dispute with a California couple regarding her refusal to terminate the pregnancy. The crux of the issue arose after the child was diagnosed with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS), a serious heart condition. Represented by attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom and First & Fourteenth PLLC, West requested Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit, for an administrative stay and a stay pending a potential petition for certiorari.

Surrogate Challenges in Court

West contends that California courts violated federal due process by interpreting her jurisdictional defense as an act of consent. She argues that without a stay, the baby could be relocated to California for hospice care, while she remains uninvolved in decisions regarding the child’s medical treatments. On Monday, she expressed concern that the child could be moved from Texas sooner than expected, prompting her to seek an administrative stay by 1 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday.

California Court’s Ruling and West’s Actions

A California court recently ruled that the commissioning parents are the legal parents of the child and denied West’s custody claims. The commissioning parents argue that California maintains jurisdiction under the surrogacy agreement. They assert their status as the child’s legal parents.

West had refused the commissioning parents’ abortion request, relocating to Texas, a state with abortion restrictions, to ensure access to specialized medical care for the child. She sought parentage and protective orders in Alaska and Texas. In response, the commissioning parents filed a parentage action in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

West entered a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction and object to the forum, referencing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in Alaska. However, the California trial court interpreted her jurisdictional arguments and exhibits as a general appearance, signifying her consent to the court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the court entered an ex parte judgment of parentage favoring the commissioning parents.

After the child was born in Texas on August 12, a Texas court acknowledged the California ruling, naming the commissioning couple as the legal parents, and dismissed West from the case with prejudice, preventing her from refiling the same claim in that proceeding.