FirstAlerts

Surrogate Responds in Texas Custody Dispute Over Newborn With Heart Condition

McKenna West has answered the allegations in a contested civil case over custody of a newborn with a heart condition.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 12:25 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 26, 2026, 5:12 a.m. ETWritten Aug 26, 2026, 12:30 p.m. ET
The surrogate in a Texas custody dispute over a newborn with a heart condition has answered the allegations, according to Telemundo 52. The case, filed in district court, is now at a stage. The couple alleges the surrogate breached the surrogacy contract, while the surrogate alleges the couple was not committed to life-saving care, Telemundo 52 reported. The dispute involves a Los Angeles couple and their surrogate, McKenna West, over custody of the newborn.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 26, 2026, 12:25 p.m. ETFirst report

    Los Angeles Couple and Surrogate Dispute Custody of Newborn with Heart Condition in Texas Court

    A Los Angeles couple and their surrogate, McKenna West, are in a contested civil dispute in a Texas district court over custody of a newborn with a heart condition, according to Telemundo 52.

    The couple alleges that West breached the surrogacy contract, while West alleges that the couple was not committed to life-saving care for the infant. The case is at the litigation release stage and remains contested, with no resolution reported.

    The outcome of the dispute has not been determined.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 126 Aug 2026, 16:30current

    First published.

  2. Version 126 Aug 2026, 16:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.