The surrogate who declined to have an abortion requested by the biological parents has submitted an updated brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. This follows an emergency application she filed last week, where she claimed that the case is progressing more quickly than she anticipated.
McKenna West, who resides in Alaska, is embroiled in a legal dispute with a couple from California—referred to as the commissioning parties—after she refused to end her pregnancy following a serious heart condition diagnosis for the baby, known as Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS).
West, represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom and First & Fourteenth PLLC, asked Justice Elena Kagan, who is responsible for emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit, for a stay of proceedings along with a potential petition for certiorari.
In her application, she argues that California’s courts have violated her federal due process rights by interpreting her challenge to jurisdiction as an admission of consent. Furthermore, she warns that without the stay, the infant might be moved to California for hospice care, leaving her out of the loop regarding crucial medical decisions for the child.
On Monday, West and her legal team expressed concerns that the baby could be transferred out of Texas sooner than she expected, prompting her to request the Supreme Court for an administrative stay by 1 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday.
This legal drama escalated following a California court’s ruling that recognized the commissioning parents as the child’s legal parents, effectively denying West’s claims to custody. The couple argues that California holds jurisdiction based on their surrogacy agreement and insists that they are the legitimate parents.
West had previously traveled to Texas—where abortion laws are more restrictive—after rejecting the commissioning parents’ abortion request, aiming for the specialized medical care she saw as necessary. She sought parentage and protective orders in both Alaska and Texas, but the commissioning couple initiated a parentage action in Los Angeles Superior Court. In response, West contested the personal jurisdiction and objected to the venue based on a forum-selection clause stipulating that legal proceedings should take place in Alaska.
Despite her arguments, the California trial court decided that West’s claims regarding jurisdiction and her supporting documents indicated a general appearance, which the court interpreted as consent to its jurisdiction. This led to an ex parte judgment of parentage favoring the commissioning parents.
After the baby was born in Texas on August 12, a Texas court acknowledged the California ruling that named the commissioning couple as the legal parents, consequently dismissing West’s claims against the case with prejudice, which means she cannot refile similar claims within that case.
