Grandparents' Rights by State: Visitation Laws and Standards
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 12, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Grandparents do not have an automatic legal right to see their grandchildren anywhere in the United States. That single fact is the most commonly misunderstood piece of information in this entire subject area, and it is worth stating before anything else on this page: a fit parent's decision about who spends time with their child is entitled to real constitutional deference, and a grandparent seeking visitation or custody has to overcome that deference in court, not simply ask for it.
This hub exists because the honest answer to «what are grandparents' rights in my state» is genuinely different from state to state, and most of what circulates online flattens that difference in one direction or the other. Some sources oversell grandparents' odds; others undersell how often courts actually do grant these orders under the right facts. The most important thing this hub can tell you is not a single national rule; it is which of six distinct regimes your state actually falls into, because that regime controls almost everything else about whether a petition is realistic.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12, extracted directly from the 51 individual state pages linked in the table below. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
The Fit-Parent Presumption Comes First
Before any statute, any standing rule, or any state's particular test, there is a constitutional baseline that applies everywhere in the country: the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a fit parent's right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their own child, and courts must presume a fit parent is acting in that child's best interest. A grandparent does not start on equal footing with a parent in a visitation or custody dispute. The grandparent is asking a court to override, or at least qualify, a decision the Constitution says belongs to the parent first.
That does not mean grandparents never win these cases. Thousands of grandparent-visitation orders are granted every year under the right facts, most often after a parent has died, where an established and undisputed bond already exists, or where the family largely agrees and simply wants an enforceable schedule. What it means is that the starting point everywhere is deference to the parent, not a neutral weighing of what a judge personally thinks would be nice for the child. Both directions of misinformation on this topic are errors: telling a grandparent «you have rights» overstates the law, and telling a grandparent «you have no chance at all» understates it just as badly.
What Troxel v. Granville Actually Requires, and Does Not
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is the U.S. Supreme Court decision behind essentially every state's current approach, and it is also one of the most consistently oversimplified rulings in family law. Paternal grandparents petitioned for expanded visitation after their son, the children's father, died; the children's mother had not cut off contact, only limited it. Under a Washington statute that let «any person» petition for visitation «at any time» whenever a court thought it would serve the child's best interest, with no threshold showing required at all, a trial court granted the grandparents more visitation than the mother had offered, giving her wishes no special weight. The Supreme Court struck that outcome down, but there was no majority opinion; six justices wrote at least four different rationales. The one proposition that commanded real agreement is narrow: once a fit parent's decision becomes subject to judicial review, a court «must accord at least some special weight to the parent's own determination.»
What Troxel did not do matters just as much as what it did. It did not require proof of harm to the child as a nationwide constitutional rule; the plurality expressly declined to decide that question, leaving individual states free to require it or not under their own law. It did not strike down grandparent-visitation statutes generally; the ruling applied to one unusually broad Washington law and one specific set of facts, not a blanket rule against these statutes. And it did not set a single nationwide test. Each state has been free to build its own standard on top of that floor, as long as a fit parent's decision receives real, not nominal, weight, which is exactly why the state-by-state picture in the table below looks as varied as it does.
Six Ways States Answer the Same Question
Because Troxel set a floor rather than a single rule, states have built six recognizably different regimes on top of it. These are not official legal categories with the same name in every state's own code; they are patterns that emerge once all 51 state pages behind this hub are compared side by side.
Harm-standard states (13): AK, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, ND, OK, TN, UT, VA, WA. A grandparent must prove, usually by clear and convincing evidence, that the child would suffer real harm or detriment if visitation were denied. This is the hardest tier to clear. Florida limits standing to a parent's death, disappearance, or incapacity in the first place; Oklahoma's courts have held, on independent state constitutional grounds, that a court cannot even reach a best-interest analysis without a threshold harm showing. Utah arrived here by decision rather than statute text: in Jones v. Jones (2015), its Supreme Court held that a visitation order over a fit parent's objection must survive strict scrutiny, and both of the statute's rebuttal grounds are anchored in harm.
Presumption-rebuttal states (21): AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, DC, IA, IN, LA, MI, MT, NE, NV, NH, NY, OR, RI, SC, TX, WV. These states apply a best-interest test built around a rebuttable presumption that favors the fit parent's own decision, with the exact evidentiary burden (preponderance or clear and convincing) varying by state. California runs presumptions squarely against granting visitation once a parent objects; Oregon's courts have expressly declined to add a separate harm requirement on top of the presumption.
Judicially-narrowed states (12): KY, MD, MA, ME, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NM, OH, PA, WI. In these states, the case is the law. The statute's own text is often bare, vague, or silent on the constitutional threshold, and a state supreme or appellate court has supplied the real controlling standard, sometimes without the legislature ever rewriting the code section to match. Maryland's statute is a single sentence with no mention of harm at all; Koshko v. Haining is what actually governs. North Carolina joined this tier by way of an intermediate appellate decision: Alexander v. Alexander (2021) requires deference to a fit parent's decision under the visitation statutes, though the state supreme court itself has not yet spoken. Treating the bare statute as the operative rule in any of these 12 states is a serious, common error.
Best-interest-surviving states (3): SD, VT, WY. These states have permissive-sounding statutes that read as an easy bar to clear, and no state appellate decision has tested that text against Troxel's special-weight requirement. This does not mean the statute is safe to rely on as written; it means an order granted purely on the bare best-interest language, without a court separately giving the parent's decision real deference, sits on genuinely uncertain constitutional ground. This is where the gap between advocacy-site optimism and actual legal risk is widest, and it is the warning this hub exists in part to deliver.
Statute struck down (1): ID. Idaho stands alone: in 2022, the Idaho Supreme Court held the state's grandparent-visitation statute facially unconstitutional under strict scrutiny. The text still sits in the code, but Idaho currently has no enforceable grandparent-visitation statute, and the legislature has not enacted a replacement.
Unresolved states (1): MN. Minnesota's leading case involved a different kind of petitioner entirely and said so directly; the governing standard for an ordinary grandparent petition remains genuinely unsettled. That is not a gap in this hub's research; it is an honest description of where the law currently stands.
Your own state's tier controls almost everything else about how a real petition would play out, which is why each state gets its own dedicated page rather than being compressed into a single national answer. Before filing anything, ask a family lawyer in your state for a free case evaluation on which tier applies and whether a petition is realistic (attorney advertising).
Visitation Is Not Custody
Everything above concerns visitation: scheduled contact while a parent keeps legal and physical custody of the child. Seeking actual custody or guardianship is a separate, substantially harder undertaking, because it displaces a parent's custodial rights rather than merely qualifying them. Courts apply an even more protective standard, commonly requiring proof of parental unfitness, extraordinary circumstances, or a formal de facto custodian showing, through a different legal track (guardianship, dependency, or third-party custody) than an ordinary visitation petition follows.
For the full picture on the visitation side, including standing rules, the adoption cutoff, and how a petition actually works nationally, see Grandparent Visitation Rights. For the harder custody and guardianship track specifically, including when it genuinely arises, kinship-care resources, and why it is the most oversold topic in this entire subject area, see Can Grandparents Get Custody? Both pages cover the national legal picture; the state table below covers what actually governs where you live.
What Happens to Visitation After an Adoption
In most states, a final adoption decree severs the child's legal relationship with the birth family on the side of any parent whose rights were terminated, and an existing grandparent-visitation order typically ends along with it. This is the general pattern, though the exact statutory language and its exceptions genuinely vary by state and deserve a state-specific check rather than an assumption either way.
A meaningful number of states carve out an exception for a stepparent or relative adoption, treating it differently from a stranger adoption for this purpose. South Dakota, for example, cuts off visitation only when the child is placed for adoption with someone other than a stepparent or grandparent, and ties that cutoff to placement rather than the final decree. Other states limit any such exception to orders that already existed before the adoption, and a few, like Maryland, have never resolved the question at all. Confirm your state's specific rule on its own page before assuming a stepparent adoption preserves, or ends, an existing order.
Consider Mediation Before You File
Grandparent-visitation and custody litigation is expensive, often takes the better part of a year or more, and puts a grandparent in direct legal conflict with the child's own parent. That adversarial posture carries a real cost regardless of who ultimately wins: even a successful petition can permanently damage the family relationship, and with it, the kind of informal access a grandparent might otherwise have kept. Mediation, family counseling, or simply a direct, calm conversation resolves a meaningful share of these disputes without a filing ever becoming necessary, and it is worth attempting first in nearly every situation, not as a formality before litigation but as a genuinely better outcome when it works. Every state page in the table below repeats this same practical advice before covering the courthouse process, because the honest odds and the honest costs both point the same direction.
Grandparents' Rights by State: Full Comparison Table
The table below reflects each state's own dedicated page, current as of August 2026. «Regime» uses the six categories explained above. «Controlling Authority» is the statute citation, or, for judicially-narrowed states, the case that actually governs. Click a state's name for the full page: exact standing triggers, the real evidentiary standard, the custody track, adoption-cutoff rules, and filing procedure.
Northeast states
The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Harm-standard | Any time, no trigger required | Clear and convincing proof of harm | Roth v. Weston (2002) |
| Maine | Judicially-narrowed | Sufficient existing relationship or compelling state interest | Grandparent who has functioned as a parent; a traditional harm showing is not required | Rideout v. Riendeau (2000) |
| Massachusetts | Judicially-narrowed | Divorce, separation, parent's death, out-of-wedlock birth | Preponderance, significant harm | Blixt v. Blixt (2002) |
| New Hampshire | Presumption-rebuttal | Access already restricted at a qualifying event | Special weight to parent's decision | Petition of Lundquist (2016) |
| New Jersey | Judicially-narrowed | Any time, no trigger required | Preponderance, actual harm | Moriarty v. Bradt (2003) |
| New York | Presumption-rebuttal | Parent's death or equitable circumstances | Strong presumption favors parent | E.S. v. P.D. (2007) |
| Pennsylvania | Judicially-narrowed | Parent's death, active custody dispute, or 12-month residency | Best-interest factors after standing met | 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5324 |
| Rhode Island | Presumption-rebuttal | Death, divorce, or 30 days of refused visits | Clear and convincing, rebut presumption | R.I. Gen. Laws Section 15-5-24.3 |
| Vermont | Best-interest-surviving | Within a pending case, or parent death/incapacity/abandonment | Bare best interest, untested against Troxel | 15 V.S.A. Section 1011 |
Midwest states
The tables below cover 12 states in the Midwest.
Great Lakes states
The table below covers 5 Great Lakes states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Harm-standard | Death/incompetence/incarceration of a parent, divorce, unmarried parents | Undue harm, rebut presumption | 750 ILCS 5/602.9 |
| Indiana | Presumption-rebuttal | Parent's death, Indiana divorce, out-of-wedlock birth | Special weight to parent, no fixed burden | Ind. Code Section 31-17-5-1 |
| Michigan | Presumption-rebuttal | Divorce, death, unmarried parents apart, established custodial environment | Preponderance, rebut presumption | MCL 722.27b |
| Ohio | Judicially-narrowed | Parent's death or birth to an unmarried mother (R.C. 3109.11, 3109.12); see state page for any other route | Special weight to parent required | Harrold v. Collier (2005) |
| Wisconsin | Judicially-narrowed | Petition in circuit court with notice to parents | Clear and convincing, rebut presumption | Michels v. Lyons (2019) |
Plains states
The table below covers 7 Plains states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | Presumption-rebuttal | Death of the grandparent's own child (the parent) | Clear and convincing, rebut presumption | Iowa Code Section 600C.1 |
| Kansas | Harm-standard | 12-month caretaker, familial relationship, or emotional bond | Harm required (3-element test) | K.S.A. 23-3308 |
| Minnesota | Unresolved | Death, divorce/separation, out-of-wedlock birth, 12+ months residency | Unresolved for an ordinary grandparent case | Minn. Stat. Section 257C.08 |
| Missouri | Judicially-narrowed | Set by RSMo 452.402 (the version Herndon construed required more than 90 days of unreasonable denial) | Occasional, minimal contact only | Herndon v. Tuhey (1993) |
| Nebraska | Presumption-rebuttal | Parent's death, pending dissolution, out-of-wedlock birth | Clear and convincing, 3-element test | Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 43-1802 |
| North Dakota | Harm-standard | Any time, no trigger required | 12-month caretaker, or relationship plus harm | N.D.C.C. ch. 14-09.4 |
| South Dakota | Best-interest-surviving | Any time, no trigger required | Bare best interest, untested against Troxel | SDCL 25-4-52 |
Southern states
The tables below cover 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.
South Atlantic states
The table below covers 8 South Atlantic states, plus the District of Columbia.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware | Presumption-rebuttal | Any time, no trigger required | Prove objection unreasonable, clear and convincing | 13 Del. C. Section 2412 |
| District of Columbia | Presumption-rebuttal | Consent, primary caregiving, or exceptional circumstance | Rebut presumption, clear and convincing | D.C. Code Section 16-831.05 |
| Florida | Harm-standard | Both parents deceased/missing/incapacitated, or one plus a violent felony | Clear and convincing proof of unfitness or harm | Fla. Stat. Section 752.011 |
| Georgia | Harm-standard | Divorce, death, remarriage/adoption after death, 6+ months residency | Clear and convincing proof of harm to welfare | O.C.G.A. Section 19-7-3 |
| Maryland | Judicially-narrowed | Any time, no trigger required | Prove unfitness or exceptional circumstances | Koshko v. Haining (2007) |
| North Carolina | Judicially-narrowed | Only inside a pending custody case, or post-adoption | Best interest, with court-required deference to the parent | Alexander v. Alexander (2021); N.C.G.S. Section 50-13.2(b1) |
| South Carolina | Presumption-rebuttal | Death, divorce, or parents living apart | Clear and convincing, compelling circumstances | Camburn v. Smith (2003) |
| Virginia | Harm-standard | No separate statute; folded into custody provisions | Clear and convincing, actual harm | Va. Code Section 20-124.2 |
| West Virginia | Presumption-rebuttal | Depends on procedural posture (3 tracks) | Presumption if no case pending; lower if pending | W. Va. Code Section 48-10-702 |
East South Central states
The table below covers 4 East South Central states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Presumption-rebuttal | Divorce/separation, death, out-of-wedlock birth, remarriage after death | Rebut presumption, clear and convincing | Ala. Code Section 30-3-4.2 |
| Kentucky | Judicially-narrowed | Any time; a separate route exists if the grandparent's child has died and the grandparent assumed that parent's child-support obligation | Clear and convincing, 8-factor test | Walker v. Blair (2012) |
| Mississippi | Judicially-narrowed | Divorce, death, rights termination, 6+ months support/overnight visits | 10-factor test, capped below parent-level | Martin v. Coop (1997) |
| Tennessee | Harm-standard | One of several enumerated triggers | Danger of substantial harm | Hawk v. Hawk (1993) |
West South Central states
The table below covers 4 West South Central states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | Presumption-rebuttal | Death, divorce, marital-status change, out-of-wedlock birth, court-found unfitness, child in non-parent custody | Rebuttable presumption, preponderance to rebut; untested on appeal since Linder | Ark. Code Ann. Section 9-13-103 (Act 679 of 2019) |
| Louisiana | Presumption-rebuttal | Divorce/separation/unmarried parents, or death/incarceration/6+ months apart | Presumption weighed as a factor | La. Civil Code Art. 136 |
| Oklahoma | Harm-standard | One of nine statutory triggers | Harm or threat of harm, threshold gate | Neal v. Lee (2000) |
| Texas | Presumption-rebuttal | Parent's death, incarceration, incompetence, or no custody order | Preponderance, significant impairment | Tex. Fam. Code Section 153.433 |
Western states
The tables below cover 13 states in the West.
Mountain states
The table below covers 8 Mountain states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Presumption-rebuttal | Parent's death/absence, divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, in loco parentis | Best interest, special weight to parent | Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 25-409 |
| Colorado | Presumption-rebuttal | Pending divorce/separation, no custody order, parent's death | Rebut presumption, clear and convincing | Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 14-10-124.4 |
| Idaho | Statute struck down | None; the statute was held void in 2022 | Facially unconstitutional under strict scrutiny | Idaho Supreme Court (2022) |
| Montana | Presumption-rebuttal | Set by MCA 40-9-102; see state page | Clear and convincing, rebut presumption | Polasek v. Omura (2006) |
| Nevada | Presumption-rebuttal | After a parent already denied visits, plus a relationship trigger | Clear and convincing, rebut presumption | Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 125C.050 |
| New Mexico | Judicially-narrowed | Divorce, death, termination of parental rights, or the child's past residency with the grandparents | Special factors beyond best interest | Williams v. Williams (2002) |
| Utah | Harm-standard | Any time, no trigger required | Strict scrutiny; parent-like role whose loss threatens substantial harm | Jones v. Jones (2015) |
| Wyoming | Best-interest-surviving | Any time, no trigger required | Bare best interest, untested against Troxel | Wyo. Stat. Section 20-7-101 |
Pacific states
The table below covers 5 Pacific states.
| State | Regime | Who Can Petition | Standard to Win | Controlling Authority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Harm-standard | Any time, ongoing contact attempted | Clear and convincing proof of detriment | Ross v. Bauman (2015) |
| California | Presumption-rebuttal | Barred if parents married and living together, absent listed exceptions | Rebut presumption AGAINST visitation | Cal. Fam. Code Section 3104 |
| Hawaii | Harm-standard | Parent incarcerated/died (freestanding); open custody case (secondary) | Significant harm; looser inside a custody case | HRS Section 571-46.3 |
| Oregon | Presumption-rebuttal | Child-parent relationship, or 1+ year ongoing relationship | Rebut presumption, no harm required | ORS 109.119 |
| Washington | Harm-standard | 2+ year relationship (or half the child's life) | Dual harm showing, clear and convincing | RCW ch. 26.11 |
Where to Go Next
This hub covers the state-by-state comparison. For the deeper national walkthrough of a specific question, see:
- Grandparent Visitation Rights: what Troxel actually requires, standing rules, the adoption cutoff, and the realistic odds nationally.
- Can Grandparents Get Custody?: the separate, harder custody and guardianship track, when it genuinely arises, and kinship-care resources.
For related family-law topics, see Child Custody Laws and Divorce Laws for the state pages covering the broader disputes a grandparent case often sits alongside.
Disclaimer
This hub provides general information comparing how the 50 states and the District of Columbia handle grandparents' visitation and custody rights. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This is a genuinely fact-intensive, frequently misunderstood area of law, and several states covered here are governed primarily by court decisions that can change without any statutory amendment at all. Confirm current details on the specific state page linked above, or with a licensed family-law attorney in that state, before relying on anything here for an actual filing.
Last updated: 2026-08-12. Regime classifications, standing rules, and citations reflect their published status as of August 2026, extracted directly from each state's own dedicated page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do grandparents have a legal right to see their grandchildren?
No, not automatically, and not in any state. A fit parent's decision about who spends time with their child gets constitutional deference everywhere in the country, and a grandparent has to file a petition, establish standing under that state's rules, and then overcome the presumption favoring the parent.
What did Troxel v. Granville actually decide?
The Supreme Court struck down, as applied to one family, a Washington statute that let any person petition for visitation at any time with no threshold showing, where the trial court had given the mother's wishes no special weight at all. The Court held a fit parent's decision must get at least some special weight. It expressly declined to require proof of harm nationally, and it did not set one single test every state must follow.
Which states are hardest for a grandparent to win in?
The 13 harm-standard states (Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) require the grandparent to prove, usually by clear and convincing evidence, that the child would suffer real harm without visitation. Several judicially-narrowed states, including Maryland and Missouri, apply similarly demanding case-law standards even though their statutes read more permissively.
Is it easier to get visitation or custody?
Visitation, by a wide margin. Visitation asks a court to qualify a parent's decision about contact while the parent keeps custody. Custody asks a court to displace the parent's custodial rights entirely, so courts apply a stricter standard, typically requiring proof of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. See Can Grandparents Get Custody? for that separate, harder track.
Does adoption end a grandparent's visitation rights?
Usually, if the adoption is by someone other than a stepparent or another grandparent. Most states cut off an existing order at that point, though a meaningful number of states carve out an exception for a stepparent or relative adoption. The exact rule varies by state; check your state's own page before assuming either way.
How do I find the exact rules for my state?
Use the table above and click your state's name. Each of the 51 linked pages covers that state's specific standing triggers, the real evidentiary standard (including any controlling case law), the custody track, the adoption-cutoff rule, and how to actually file.
Updates
Corrected the state table so the Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah rows state only what the cited court decisions actually say.
Corrected the Maine entry to reflect what Rideout v. Riendeau actually held: a grandparent who has functioned as a parent can seek continued contact without a traditional showing of harm, and the decision sets no clear-and-convincing burden.
Corrected two leftover references to "five" regimes (the page defines six) and fixed the description of Maryland's grandparent-visitation statute, which is a single sentence rather than two.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Northeast
Midwest
South
| State | Statute cited | Court citations |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Code of Alabama 1975, Title 30: Marital and Domestic Relations. § 30-3-4.2 — Grandparent Visitation. | 5 opinions · latest 2024 |
| Arkansas | Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated § 9-13-103 — Visitation rights of grandparents when child is in custody… | 47 opinions · latest 2025 |
| Delaware | Delaware Code, Title 13 (Domestic Relations), Chapter 024 (THIRD-PARTY VISITATION) § 2412 — Grounds for persons obtaining third-party visitation with a… | — |
| District of Columbia | Code of the District of Columbia, Title 16: Particular Actions, Proceedings and Matters. - Chapter 8A: Third-Party Custody. § 16-831.02 — Action for custody of child by a third party. | 6 opinions · latest 2024 |
| Florida | Florida Statutes § 752.011 — Petition for grandparent visitation with a minor child. | 3 opinions · latest 2023 |
| Georgia | Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 19-7-3 — Actions by grandparents or other family members for… | 94 opinions · latest 2026 |
| Kentucky | Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 405: PARENT AND CHILD § 405.021 — Reasonable visitation rights to grandparents | 61 opinions · latest 2025 |
| Louisiana | Louisiana Civil Code § 136 — Award of visitation rights | 44 opinions · latest 2026 |
| Maryland | Maryland Code, Family Law Article § 9-102 | 2 opinions · latest 2003 |
| Mississippi | Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated § 93-16-3 — Who may petition for visitation rights; when; court in… | — |
| North Carolina | North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 50: Divorce and Alimony. § 50-13.2 — Who entitled to custody; terms of custody; visitation… | 160 opinions · latest 2026 |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma Statutes, Title 43: MARRIAGE AND FAMILY § 109.4 — Grandparental visitation rights | 7 opinions · latest 2026 |
| South Carolina | South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 63: SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S CODE § 63-3-530 — Jurisdiction in domestic matters | 73 opinions · latest 2026 |
| Tennessee | Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-306 — Grandparents' visitation rights. | 82 opinions · latest 2025 |
| Texas | Texas Family Code § 153.433 — POSSESSION OF OR ACCESS TO GRANDCHILD | 63 opinions · latest 2026 |
| Virginia | Code of Virginia, Title 20: Domestic Relations § 20-124.2 — Court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements | — |
| West Virginia | West Virginia Code § 48-10-501 — Necessary findings for grant of reasonable visitation to a… | — |
West
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Family Code
§ 3104In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) On petition to the court by a grandparent of a minor child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the grandparent if the court does both of the following: (1) Finds that there is a preexisting relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild that has engendered a bond such that visitation is in the best interest of the child. (2) Balances the interest of the child in having visitation with the grandparent against the right of the parents to exercise their parental authority. (b) A petition for visitation under this section shall not be filed while the natural or adoptive parents are married, unless one or more of the following circumstances exist: (1) The parents are currently living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis. (2) One of the parents has been absent for more than one month without the other spouse knowing the whereabouts of the absent spouse. (3) One of the parents joins in the petition with the grandparents. (4) The child is not residing with either parent. (5) The child has been adopted by a stepparent. (6) One of the parents is incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts have applied Family Code 3104 to grandparent visitation. In re Marriage of Harris (2004) held section 3104 valid on its face and as applied, with subdivision (f)'s presumption governing when a sole-custody parent objects. Lopez v. Martinez (2000) held a stepparent adoption requires terminating visitation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jasmine M. (California Court of Appeal 2014, 228 Cal. App. 4th 953)✓A mother invoked Family Code 3104(f) against grandmother visitation ordered as her dependency case closed; the court held section 3104 does not govern dependency proceedings, so Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4 supplied authority for the exit visitation order.
- In Re Marriage of Harris (California Supreme Court 2004, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842)✓A sole-custody mother objected to paternal grandparent visitation the father supported; the court held section 3104 governs after a dissolution judgment, upheld it against facial and as-applied attack, and remanded because the trial court ignored subdivision (f)'s presumption.
- Punsly v. Ho (California Court of Appeal 2003, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89)“…as unconstitutional as applied under a companion statute, Family Code section 3104. (In re Marriage of Harris…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Grandparents' Rights: Visitation Law Under Family Code 3104, Grandparent Visitation Rights
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 722.27bOrder for grandparenting time; circumstances; acknowledgment of parentage; commencement of action; procedures; affidavit; basis for entry of order; best interests of child; alternative dispute resolution; frequency of filing complaint or motion seeking order; attorney fees; order prohibiting change of domicile of child; effect of entry of order; modifying or terminating order; record; termination of grandparent's right to commence actionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A child's grandparent may seek a grandparenting time order under 1 or more of the following circumstances: (a) An action for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment involving the child's parents is pending before the court. (b) The child's parents are divorced, separated under a judgment of separate maintenance, or have had their marriage annulled. (c) The child's parent who is a child of the grandparents is deceased. (d) The child's parents have never been married, they are not residing in the same household, and paternity has been established by the completion of an acknowledgment of parentage under the acknowledgment of parentage act, 1996 PA 305, MCL 722.1001 to 722.1013, by an order of filiation entered under the paternity act, 1956 PA 205, MCL 722.711 to 722.730, or by a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that the individual is the father of the child. (e) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (13), legal custody of the child has been given to a person other than the child's parent, or the child is placed outside of and does not reside in the home of a parent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 58 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):DeRose v. DeRose (2003) held an earlier version of MCL 722.27b unconstitutional under Troxel because it gave no deference to a fit parent's decision, prompting the 2004 rewrite. Varran v. Granneman (2015) rejected a facial challenge to the rewritten statute, holding its substantial-risk-of-harm showing gives parents sufficient deference.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hunter v. Hunter (Michigan Supreme Court 2009, 484 Mich. 247)“…one provision in the CCA refers to parental fitness at all. MCL 722.27b requires a court considering whether to…”
- Frame v. Nehls (Michigan Supreme Court 1996, 452 Mich. 171)✓A paternal grandfather sought visitation after a paternity action established his son's fatherhood. The Michigan Supreme Court held a paternity case is not a child custody dispute under MCL 722.27b(2), so he lacked standing, and rejected his equal protection challenge.
- Varran v. Granneman (Michigan Court of Appeals 2015, 312 Mich. App. 591)✓Grandparents who had raised the boy for years won grandparenting time after his father cut back visits. The Michigan Court of Appeals held such an order affects custody and is appealable by right, rejected a facial challenge to MCL 722.27b's preponderance standard, and affirmed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Grandparents' Rights: How the Law Was Rebuilt After DeRose
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 23: KANSAS FAMILY LAW CODE-REVISED
§ 23-3308Requirements for order of visitation.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) A court may order visitation to a nonparent only if the nonparent proves that: (1) The denial of visitation would result in harm to the child; (2) the nonparent: (A) Is or has been a consistent caretaker as described in subsection (b) within one year of the initiation of the action; or (B) has a substantial relationship with the child as described in subsection (c); and (3) an order of visitation to the nonparent is in the best interest of the child applying the factors in K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 23-3315, and amendments thereto.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Also relied on in: Kansas Grandparents' Rights: The 2024 Nonparent Visitation Law
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 257C: DE FACTO CUSTODIAN AND INTERESTED THIRD PARTY
§ 257C.08RIGHTS OF VISITATION TO UNMARRIED PERSONSIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. If parent is deceased. If a parent of an unmarried minor child is deceased, the parents and grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable visitation rights to the unmarried minor child during minority by the district court upon finding that visitation rights would be in the best interests of the child and would not interfere with the parent child relationship. The court shall consider the amount of personal contact between the parents or grandparents of the deceased parent and the child prior to the application. Subd. 2. Family court proceedings.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Rohmiller v. Hart (2012) held section 257C.08 unambiguous and denied visitation to an aunt outside the classes it lists, adding that she had no common law right because she never stood in loco parentis. Christianson v. Henke (2013) held a filed Recognition of Parentage is a proceeding under subdivision 2.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Christianson v. Henke (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2013, 831 N.W.2d 532)✓The child's unmarried parents signed and filed a Recognition of Parentage instead of litigating paternity; the court held that a filed Recognition of Parentage is a "proceeding" for parentage under 257C.08, subdivision 2, so the district court could order grandmother visitation.
- Soohoo v. Johnson (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2007, 731 N.W.2d 815)✓A former partner who had co-parented two adopted children sought visitation after the couple split; the court upheld 257C.08, subdivision 4, on its face and as applied, but required the petitioner to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence and struck subdivision 7.
- Rohmiller v. Hart (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2012, 811 N.W.2d 585)✓An aunt who had never stood in loco parentis sought visitation with her deceased twin sister's daughter over the father's objection; the court held 257C.08 unambiguously lists who may petition, aunts are not among them, and no common law or equitable route supplied the right.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Grandparents' Rights: An Honestly Unsettled Standard
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 25-4: DIVORCE AND SEPARATE MAINTENANCE
§ 25-4-52Visitation rights for grandparents--Enforcement by circuit court.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The circuit court may grant grandparents reasonable rights of visitation with their grandchild, with or without petition by the grandparents, if the visitation is in the best interests of the grandchild and: (1) If the visitation will not significantly interfere with the parent- child relationship; or (2) If the parent or custodian of the grandchild has denied or prevented the grandparent reasonable opportunity to visit the grandchild. The circuit court shall issue any orders necessary to enforce or to protect visitation rights granted pursuant to this section. As used in this section, the term grandparents includes great-grandparents.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Currey v. Currey (2002) rejected a Troxel challenge to SDCL 25-4-52, treating its final sentence presuming visitation after a parent's death as unconstitutional but severable. Medearis v. Whiting (2005) reversed an award where the trial court presumed visitation was best for the child and gave a fit mother's decision no special weight.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Currey v. Currey (South Dakota Supreme Court 2002, 650 N.W.2d 273)✓After a divorce decree gave the paternal grandparents visitation, the mother moved and asked that SDCL 25-4-52 be declared unconstitutional; the court held the amended statute is not unconstitutional on these facts, and its deceased-parent presumption is invalid but severable.
- Medearis v. Whiting (South Dakota Supreme Court 2005, 695 N.W.2d 226)✓A grandmother won visitation with a four-year-old whose mother had been raped by his father; the court reversed, holding SDCL 25-4-52 was applied unconstitutionally by presuming visitation was in the child's best interests and giving the fit mother's decision no special weight.
- Zimmer v. Zimmer (South Dakota Supreme Court 2010, 781 N.W.2d 482)✓Parents who cut off contact after years of conflict with the grandparents were ordered to allow two week-long visits a year; the court reversed and set out five steps required by SDCL 25-4-52, including a parental presumption and clear and convincing proof of special factors.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Grandparents' Rights: Visitation Law and the Troxel Gap
Maryland Code, Family Law Article
§ 9-102In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§9–102. An equity court may: (1) consider a petition for reasonable visitation of a grandchild by a grandparent; and (2) if the court finds it to be in the best interests of the child, grant visitation rights to the grandparent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2003
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herrick v. Wain (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 2003, 154 Md. App. 222)“…aint for reasonable visitation by a grandparent pursuant to Md.Code Ann., Fam. Law § 9-102 (2008). Herrick filed an answer to the…”
- L.F.M. v. Department of Social Services (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1986, 67 Md. App. 379)“…8 . This statute is found in its present form in Md.Code Ann., Family Law Section 9-102 (1984). 9 . We not…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Grandparents' Rights: The Koshko Standard Behind a Bare Statute
Iowa Code, Chapter 600C: GRANDPARENT VISITATION
§ 600C.1Grandparent and great-grandparent visitation.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. The grandparent or great-grandparent of a minor child may petition the court for grandchild or great-grandchild visitation when the parent of the minor child, who is the child of the grandparent or the grandchild of the great-grandparent, is deceased. 2. The court shall consider a fit parent’s objections to granting visitation under this section. A rebuttable presumption arises that a fit parent’s decision to deny visitation to a grandparent or great-grandparent is in the best interest of a minor child. 3. The court may grant visitation to the grandparent or great-grandparent under this section if the court finds all of the following by clear and convincing evidence: a. It is in the best interest of the child to grant such visitation. b. The grandparent or great-grandparent has established a substantial relationship with the child prior to the filing of the petition. c. That the presumption that the parent who is being asked to temporarily relinquish care, custody, and control of the child to provide visitation is fit to make the decision regarding visitation is overcome by demonstrating one of the following: (1) The parent is unfit to make such decision.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ashenfelter v. Mulligan (2010) applied the rewritten section 600C.1 to a pending petition and held the case moot because the grandparents' own daughter, the child's mother, was living. Reisdorf v. Poling (2025) affirmed denial of visitation where the grandfather did not overcome the fit parent presumption in section 600C.1(2).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jerry L. And Susan Ashenfelter Vs. Amy S. Mulligan (Supreme Court of Iowa 2010, 792 N.W.2d 665)✓Grandparents petitioned in 2008 for visitation with their daughter's son; because the legislature rewrote section 600C.1 to allow petitions only when the child's parent is deceased, and the mother was living, the court held their pending petition was moot.
- John Reisdorf v. Emily Poling (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2025)“…erwise and determined that John failed to meet that burden. Iowa Code § 600C.1(2). We agree that John did not meet the…”
- Becky A. Clausen v. Jill M. Clausen (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2014)“…ith the child[ren] prior to the filing of the petition.” Iowa Code § 600C.1(3)(b) (2013), see also § 600C.1(5)(c)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Grandparents' Rights: The Rebuttable Presumption Under §600C.1
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 750, Act 5 (Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act)
§ 602.9Visitation by certain non-parentsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this Section: (1) "electronic communication" means time that a grandparent, great-grandparent, sibling, or step-parent spends with a child during which the child is not in the person's actual physical custody, but which is facilitated by the use of communication tools such as the telephone, electronic mail, instant messaging, video conferencing or other wired or wireless technologies via the Internet, or another medium of communication; (2) "sibling" means a brother or sister either of the whole blood or the half blood, stepbrother, or stepsister of the minor child; (3) "step-parent" means a person married to a child's parent, including a person married to the child's parent immediately prior to the parent's death; and (4) "visitation" means in-person time spent between a child and the child's grandparent, great-grandparent, sibling, step-parent, or any person designated under subsection (d) of Section 602.7. In appropriate circumstances, visitation may include electronic communication under conditions and at times determined by the court. (b) General provisions.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Illinois courts have applied 750 ILCS 5/602.9 to non-parent visitation. Robert H. v. Andrea Abbot H. (2019) applied the presumption that a fit parent's visitation decisions are not harmful and affirmed denial where the grandparent proved no harm. In re Adoption of V.C. (2024) noted section 602.9 limits who may petition.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robert H. v. Andrea Abbot H. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2019, 2019 IL App (5th) 180559)✓After his son died, a paternal grandfather sought unsupervised visits the mother would allow only in her presence; the court affirmed denial, holding he had not rebutted section 602.9's presumption that a fit parent's visitation decisions do not harm the children.
- In re Adoption of V.C. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2024, 2024 IL App (2d) 230275)✓First cousins once removed sought visitation with a child they were petitioning to adopt; the court affirmed denial, noting the claim was forfeited and that section 602.9 limits nonparent visitation petitions to grandparents, great-grandparents, siblings, and stepparents.
- In re Adoption of Konieczny (Appellate Court of Illinois 2022, 468 Ill. Dec. 28)“…children against the wishes of the children’s parents. See 750 ILCS 5/602.9 (West 2018) (parents’ decisions regardi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Grandparents' Rights: The Harm Standard Under §602.9
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXX (DOMESTIC RELATIONS), Chapter 452
§ 452.402Grandparent's visitation rights granted, when — guardian ad litem appointed, when — termination upon adoption — attorney fees and costs assessed, when.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. The court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the grandparents of the child and issue any necessary orders to enforce the decree when a grandparent has been unreasonably denied visitation for a period exceeding sixty days, and: (1) The parents of the child have filed for a dissolution of their marriage. A grandparent shall have the right to intervene in any dissolution action solely on the issue of visitation rights. Grandparents shall also have the right to file a motion to modify the original decree of dissolution to seek visitation rights when visitation has been denied to them; (2) One parent of the child is deceased and the surviving parent denies reasonable visitation to a parent of the deceased parent of the child; or (3) The child has resided in the grandparent's home for at least six months within the twenty-four month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 40 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Herndon v. Tuhey (1993) upheld section 452.402's grandparent visitation subsections against a federal constitutional challenge but held the visitation ordered was excessive. Corley v. Corley (2003) applied the best interest standard and reversed a fee award under section 452.402.7 where neither side prevailed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herndon v. Tuhey (Supreme Court of Missouri 1993, 857 S.W.2d 203)✓Grandparents sued for visitation after a family fistfight ended contact with their ten-year-old grandson. The court upheld section 452.402 against a constitutional challenge but read its waiting period to mean visitation must stay limited, reversing the schedule as excessive.
- Corley v. Corley (Missouri Court of Appeals 2003, 128 S.W.3d 521)✓A widowed mother sought to suspend or supervise the paternal grandparents' visits with her son. The court affirmed unsupervised visitation under section 452.402.2 as in the child's best interest, but reversed the fee award because neither side prevailed under section 452.402.7.
- Matter of Cer (Missouri Court of Appeals 1990, 796 S.W.2d 423)✓A paternal grandmother sought visitation with a child born out of wedlock whose father paid no support and had little contact. The court held section 452.402 imposes no marriage, paternity or support condition on a grandparent and affirmed the visitation order.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Grandparents' Rights Laws: Visitation, Custody, and the Intact-Family Bar
Montana Code Annotated, Title 40
§ 40-9-102Grandparent-Grandchild ContactIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
40-9-102. Grandparent-grandchild contact. (1) Except as provided in subsection (8), the district court may grant to a grandparent of a child reasonable rights to contact with the child, including but not limited to rights regarding a child who is the subject of, or as to whom a disposition has been made during, an administrative or court proceeding under Title 41 or this title. The department of public health and human services must be given notice of a petition for grandparent-grandchild contact regarding a child who is the subject of, or as to whom a disposition has been made during, an administrative or court proceeding under Title 41 or this title. (2) Before a court may grant a petition brought pursuant to this section for grandparent-grandchild contact over the objection of a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated, the court shall make a determination as to whether the objecting parent is a fit parent. A determination of fitness and granting of the petition may be made only after a hearing, upon notice as determined by the court. Fitness must be determined on the basis of whether the parent adequately cares for the parent's child.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Montana courts have applied MCA 40-9-102 to grandparent contact petitions. Glueckert v. Glueckert (2015) required grandparents to rebut the presumption favoring a fit parent's wishes by clear and convincing evidence. Snyder v. Spaulding (2010) held a parent seeking to end an existing contact order need only show a preponderance, not harm.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kulstad v. Maniaci (Montana Supreme Court 2009, 352 Mont. 513)✓A former partner won a parental interest in the adoptive mother's children over her objection; the court affirmed and declined to extend the parental fitness precondition of the grandparent contact statute, section 40-9-102, to sections 40-4-211 and 40-4-228.
- Snyder v. Spaulding (Montana Supreme Court 2010, 357 Mont. 34)✓A mother halted stipulated contact with the paternal grandmother; the court held the parenting plan amendment statute did not apply and, drawing on section 40-9-102, required only a preponderance showing by the parent, with no proof of concrete harm to the children.
- Glueckert v. Glueckert (Montana Supreme Court 2015, 2015 MT 107)✓Grandparents sought weekly unsupervised visits over a fit mother's objection; the court affirmed denial, holding they had not rebutted section 40-9-102's presumption favoring a fit parent's wishes by clear and convincing evidence, making a best interest finding unnecessary.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Grandparents' Rights Laws: Visitation, Custody, and the Presumption You Must Overcome
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 109: Parent and Child Rights and Relationships
§ 109.119Rights of person who establishes emotional ties creating child-parent relationship or ongoing personal relationship; presumption regarding legal parent; motion for interventionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
109.119 Rights of person who establishes emotional ties creating child-parent relationship or ongoing personal relationship; presumption regarding legal parent; motion for intervention. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (9) of this section, any person, including but not limited to a related or nonrelated foster parent, stepparent, grandparent or relative by blood or marriage, who has established emotional ties creating a child-parent relationship or an ongoing personal relationship with a child may petition or file a motion for intervention with the court having jurisdiction over the custody, placement or guardianship of that child, or if no such proceedings are pending, may petition the court for the county in which the child resides, for an order providing for relief under s
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: Oregon Grandparents' Rights: Visitation and Custody Laws
Sources and References
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), official bound-volume opinion(supremecourt.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. Section 752.011, Grandparent Visitation Rights(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Md. Code, Family Law Section 9-102, Visitation of Grandchild by Grandparent(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- South Dakota Codified Laws 25-4-52, Grandparent Visitation Rights(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 257C.08, Grandparent Visitation(www.revisor.mn.gov).gov
- California Family Code Section 3104, Grandparent visitation petition(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.