“For months before birth, Baby Gabriel knew the sound of his birth mother’s voice and experienced her presence. Medical research tells us that this relationship matters. For a medically fragile baby facing major heart surgeries and ongoing medical care, excluding the woman who carried and gave birth to him deprives him of a uniquely familiar and beneficial presence at precisely the time he is most vulnerable.

We are asking the Supreme Court to grant McKenna West’s application for a stay while the validity of the California judgment is reviewed. Without a stay, Baby Gabriel may lose irreplaceable time for bonding, caregiving, comfort, and medical support from the woman whose presence he has known since before birth. Baby Gabriel is a patient with his own dignity and medical interests, and his well-being must come first.”

"That judgment was entered in a gross violation of federal due process that warrants this Court’s review and reversal. To prevent irreparable harm in the interim, this Court should grant a stay."

The procedural history was nearly as bad. M.W. was haled into California court on two days’ notice, without proper service, and in violation of a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Alaska.

Although M.W. made a special appearance, solely to challenge personal jurisdiction and forum, the Los Angeles Superior Court reached a shocking conclusion sua sponte: that by submitting 147 pages of exhibits in support of her jurisdictional challenge, M.W. had addressed the “substance of the issues” and thus manifested consent to litigate on the merits. App.A.64.

The stakes of the decisions ...are enormous. The California courts have left the judgment in place, and other states have now enforced it and given it full faith and credit—including Texas, where the child, Baby G., was born last month.

Ordinarily, [West] would have been deemed Baby G.’s mother under Texas law by virtue of giving birth to him. But because of the unlawful California judgment, she has been dismissed with prejudice from the Texas proceedings and denied any information about or control over the medically fragile child.

“For months before birth, Baby Gabriel knew the sound of his birth mother’s voice and experienced her presence. Medical research tells us that this relationship matters. For a medically fragile baby facing major heart surgeries and ongoing medical care, excluding the woman who carried and gave birth to him deprives him of a uniquely familiar and beneficial presence at precisely the time he is most vulnerable.

We are asking the Supreme Court to grant McKenna West’s application for a stay while the validity of the California judgment is reviewed. Without a stay, Baby Gabriel may lose irreplaceable time for bonding, caregiving, comfort, and medical support from the woman whose presence he has known since before birth. Baby Gabriel is a patient with his own dignity and medical interests, and his well-being must come first.”

"That judgment was entered in a gross violation of federal due process that warrants this Court’s review and reversal. To prevent irreparable harm in the interim, this Court should grant a stay."

The procedural history was nearly as bad. M.W. was haled into California court on two days’ notice, without proper service, and in violation of a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Alaska.

Although M.W. made a special appearance, solely to challenge personal jurisdiction and forum, the Los Angeles Superior Court reached a shocking conclusion sua sponte: that by submitting 147 pages of exhibits in support of her jurisdictional challenge, M.W. had addressed the “substance of the issues” and thus manifested consent to litigate on the merits. App.A.64.

The stakes of the decisions ...are enormous. The California courts have left the judgment in place, and other states have now enforced it and given it full faith and credit—including Texas, where the child, Baby G., was born last month.

Ordinarily, [West] would have been deemed Baby G.’s mother under Texas law by virtue of giving birth to him. But because of the unlawful California judgment, she has been dismissed with prejudice from the Texas proceedings and denied any information about or control over the medically fragile child.