In the United States, all 50 states have a "grandparents visitation" statute that permits grandparents the right to petition a court to grant them the legal right to continue relationships with loved children. Like visitation among parents, this issue is surrounded in controversy, weighing the best interests of the child, the love of grandparents for that child, and the fundamental right of a fit parent to raise a child as they see fit.

Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia, provides the following discourse on case law that impacts this issue:

'Troxel v Granville'
The United States Supreme Court has said that "the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 65; 120 S Ct 2054, 2060 (2000). The Supreme Court also made it clear that this fundamental right is implicated in grandparent visitation cases. The plurality opinion stated at the outset that statutes allowing grandparent visitation orders to be imposed over parental objection "present questions of constitutional import." The Supreme Court flatly declared that a parent's fundamental right to the "care, custody and control of their children" was "at issue in this case."

The Supreme Court struck down the Washington grandparent visitation statute because it unconstitutionally infringed on that fundamental parental right.

State courts considering non-parent visitation petitions must apply "a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." Troxel, 530 US at 69; 120 S Ct at 2061, 2062. Troxel requires that State courts must give "special weight" to a fit parent's decision to deny non-parent visitation. “Choices [parents make] about the upbringing of children... are among associational rights... sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” MLB v SLJ, 519 US 102, 116-117 (1996). This principle must inform our understanding of the “special weight” Troxel requires courts to give to parents’ decisions concerning whether, when and how grandparents will associate with their children. Even though Troxel does not define "special weight," previous Supreme Court precedent indicates that "special weight" is a strong term signifying very considerable deference. See, e.g., Comstock v Group of Institutional Investors, 335 US 211, 230 (1948); Tibbs v Florida, 457 US 31 (1982). The "special weight" requirement, as illuminated by these prior Supreme Court cases, means that the deference provided to the parent's wishes will only be overcome by some compelling governmental interest and overwhelmingly clear factual circumstances supporting that governmental interest.