Rumi’s parents oppose West’s Supreme Court bid. Opposing papers are not a parentage ruling.

A Supreme Court emergency application is not a grant of certiorari and not a ruling on the merits. Opposing papers do not decide parentage. A California parentage judgment stands unless a higher court stays or reverses it. Attorneys for Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed filed a Supreme Court response opposing McKenna West’s emergency-relief bid, which challenges a California ruling naming them legal parents of the infant they call Rumi. West calls the child Gabriel. Filing against the stay request is advocacy. It is not a new parentage order.

The parents argue that pausing the parentage ruling could confuse medical decision-makers and disrupt treatment for a critically ill infant after heart surgery. They accuse West of false claims about the child’s care and say they follow doctors’ recommendations. Those are their positions in the papers. They are not findings that West’s care claims are false, and they are not a medical ruling from the justices. Counsel told reporters that multiple courts have already rejected holds on the parentage rulings. A string of denied stays, if that is what the record shows, still is not a Supreme Court decision on who the legal parents are.

A separate Alaska suit by the parents against West, alleging breach and emotional distress, remains ongoing. That civil caption is not this emergency application, and it does not rewrite California parentage.