[monroeman]

A conditional surrender may be valid if the agreement is made with all parties involved (bparents, aparents, State), and if the bparents know that they can get the carpet pulled out from under them at any time.

If I am reading things right, it sounds like Miarra is not okay with the arrangement, and only she and those involved with the case can say whether or not it would be in the child's best interest. Someone is getting set up for a lot of frustration in this deal: bmom, amom, or both. By the way, I do believe that there can never be too many people to love a child, and if it is safe and appropriate then it's great to keep contact with the birth family. You just don't see many safe and appropriate bparents when dealing with TPR. Brelatives, yes. But that's another issue.

You have the best info for your case and already know that agreeing to contact in the near future is not an option. I have to admit that you're braver than me if you agree to any kind of specific contact somewhere out in the future. Leaving the option open seems reasonable, but it would be hard for me to make any specific agreements not knowing what my son's feelings will be or what road the bparents will choose. Maybe we're on the same page here?

Anyway, I still think it is nuts for the State to offer a conditional surrender when they can't guarantee the terms of the surrender. I don't think it's fair to anyone involved. Any kind of conditions should be between the aparents and the bparents, without state involvement.