The Custody Question Got Answered. The Process That Answered It Didn’t.
By Michael Phillips | Family & State
Justice Elena Kagan’s one-sentence denial of an emergency stay this week resolved exactly one thing: whether the Supreme Court would freeze the California parentage judgment naming Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as their son’s legal parents. It did not. What it left untouched is everything else — the due-process and jurisdictional arguments McKenna West raised, and any public explanation for why they failed. That distinction matters more than “chaos” or “clarity” as a headline word, because the record shows something closer to convergence than chaos.
The bones of it: Ahmed and Gilkar, a California couple, turned to gestational surrogacy after Gilkar underwent eight rounds of unsuccessful IVF and a hysterectomy. They contracted with West, an Alaska cardiac nurse, in August 2025. The termination clause didn’t purport to physically compel an abortion — it specified that a refusal to terminate for a diagnosed fetal abnormality would count as a material breach, ending the parents’ financial obligations to West and exposing her to damages. A 20-week scan in April found hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The parents invoked the clause. West refused, left Alaska, and gave birth in Dallas on Aug. 12. She calls the baby Gabriel. His legal name, per his parents, is Rumi Ali Ahmed.
“That’s not three states unable to agree on who the parents are. That’s a sequence of courts converging on the same underlying parentage determination.”
From there, three court systems each took up some version of the same underlying question — whose parentage decision controls — and each gave effect to the same answer, though not identically. California had already issued the parentage judgment before birth. A Dallas trial court dismissed West’s conservatorship bid with prejudice on Sept. 2, granting full faith and credit to the California judgment, according to West’s subsequent filings (the Sept. 2 order itself is sealed). Ahmed and Gilkar’s own Alaska pleadings state that the Alaska Superior Court likewise afforded full faith and credit to California’s parentage ruling.
Separately, and on a narrower question, the Texas Supreme Court on Sept. 17 denied West’s request to stay a transfer of the child from Dallas to Los Angeles — citing uncontested medical testimony that the move served his medical interest — while explicitly leaving her underlying mandamus petition pending and future relief unforeclosed. That’s a temporary-relief ruling on where the child’s care happens, not a fresh adjudication of who his parents are, and it’s worth keeping the two separate.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican Senate candidate, intervened before the birth to secure a court order for the newborn’s medical treatment, then withdrew once care was underway.
“The practical parentage question has been answered. Whether the process that answered it held up to scrutiny is a different question.”
That’s not three states unable to agree on who the parents are. That’s a sequence of courts converging on the same underlying parentage determination, with one appellate stop — the U.S. Supreme Court — declining to disturb any of it. West’s application to Kagan, filed Sept. 9 and denied Sept. 22 with no opinion, is what’s actually unresolved: not the custody question, but whether the process that produced this outcome held up to scrutiny anywhere along the way. Single-justice emergency denials routinely come without opinions — that’s standard practice, not something Kagan owed anyone here — but the practical effect is the same either way: there is no public reasoning explaining why West’s showing failed to meet the emergency-stay standard. Rule 22 technically permits her to renew the application before another justice, though the Court disfavors it absent a denial without prejudice.
“There is no public reasoning explaining why West’s showing failed to meet the emergency-stay standard.”
The docket shows how quickly this attracted abortion-focused advocacy groups and elected officials on West’s side — amicus briefs from Florida’s attorney general, Americans United for Life, the American Center for Law and Justice, and a pro-life OB-GYN association all filed in the two weeks before the ruling. What that means for the underlying family-court story is a separate question from what it means for the abortion fight, and conflating them is how coverage of this case keeps losing the thread that actually belongs here.
“Conflating the abortion fight with the family-court question is how coverage of this case keeps losing the thread.”
Sources: The Hill, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, KERA News, Houston Public Media, KXAN, Texas Standard, and The Texas Tribune, reporting from August 25–September 23, 2026; the U.S. Supreme Court docket and public appendix for No. 26A325; the Supreme Court of Texas order of Sept. 17, 2026.
Keep Family & State Free
Family & State exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Family & State offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Family & State
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
