BPDFamily.com

I just want to know

It really depends on your state.  In my state (AZ) grandparents and other family members usually get contact with a child through the parent they are related to.  If the parent is dead, or in jail, or there is some other reason that won't work, the family can use the Grandparents' Rights statute to ask the Court for visitation.  Even then, the visitation has to be in the best interests of the child.

But ask a lawyer where you are to find out for sure.

You can do an internet search for "grandparents' rights" and you should have some helpful links.

I quickly saw these, there were many interesting links, among them were:
family.findlaw.com/child-custody/grandparent-rights.html
family.findlaw.com/child-custody/requirements-for-awarding-grandparent-visitation-and-custody.html
www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-rights/grandparent-rights-united-states

Normal parent and problem grandparents ... .or ... .Normal grandparents and problem parent ... .The issue can go both ways.

I seem to recall that relatives in general don't have rights.  Parents, yes.  Grandparents, maybe, depending on the state and the circumstances.

In the state of Ga, if the parent is dead/incarcerated/etc., the grandparents have no rights immediately and have to go to the court and ask for them, according to counsel.    So I asked counsel that if I died or  was severely disabled that we write the following into the parenting plan:     That grandparents and aunt/uncles, etc. have time with son.    Counsel told me that is speculative and that cannot be done.    They have to wait until I die, etc. to ask the court for these rights.

I thought this is just a way to raise attorney fees later.    I do not see why speculative stuff cannot be added or negotiated into a parenting plan.      Why should grandparents (who live out of state) have to file for this later when it can be pre-planned?

I know of a case in Ohio where parents had disapproved of their son's lifestyle, partly due to that he never married, so they didn't have much contact with him nor saw their grandchild.  Things were getting better over time but then he died in a freak accident at a park.  They petitioned the court for visitation since mother refused any contact.  The court ruled against them on two factors.  They didn't have an ongoing relationship with the toddler and since their son wasn't married the mother had more rights to say No than if they had been married.

These grandparent rights are tricky.  Even if you're in a state that recognizes some level of visitation rights, some factors can sabotage the good guys.  And then of course there's the opposite scenario where the grandparents are bad rather than good influences.

Hopefully at some point, after things get more or less sorted out in court, you can see how much leverage you really have in your situation.

Yours in particular, it seems like there is less to fear from family court, although of course there are no guarantees.

If the GPs want visitation and you feel they may be a threat to your child (do they display BPD characteristics?) then it's probably on them to file a motion or whatever they need to do to establish a relationship with your child.

Here is. Foolproof way to look at it.  No one including parents has any rifts to the kids . Final , the o lu issue to be debated is what is in the best interests of the kids and that is how the courts are going to asses the visitation and custody for anyone. It's the boom line and makes a lot of sense.