Maryland Divorce | Personal Injury Lawyer Maryland | Maryland Drunk Driving DWI Lawyers | Maryland Divorce Lawyers | Maryland Laws
Maryland divorce lawyerBelli Weil Grozbean Maryland law firm for personal injury, malpractice, divorce, custody, employmentFamily law, Maryland divorce, Maryland legal separation, Maryland separation, Md divorce, Md separation,  Montgomery County divorce, divorce court, divorce in md, divorce in the state of maryland, divorce law, divorce laws, divorce laws in maryland,  divorce mddivorce separation, divorces in maryland, law on divorce, laws about divorce, laws of divorce, laws on divorce, marital separation, marital seperation, marital status, marriage and divorce laws, marriage separation, maryland divorce law, maryland divorces, maryland family law, maryland separation laws, md divorce law, md divorce laws, separation advice, separation and divorce, separation laws, separation maryland, separation md, state of maryland divorce


Practice Areas, Family Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Corporate, Nursing Home Abuse, Mediation, Employment, Genereal Litigation, Criminal Law
Criminal Law
General Litigation
Corporate Law
Nursing Home Abuse
Auto Accident Lawyers
Child Custody Lawyers
Child Support
Divorce Attorneys
Maryland Divorce
Divorce & Family Law
Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice

OUR ATTORNEYSBWG Attorneys, Melvin M. Belli, Henry E. Weil, Stuart H. Grozbean, Zachary E. Berge, Clark U. Fleckinger II
Melvin M. Belli
Henry E. Weil
Stuart H. Grozbean
Jamie B. Maier
Clark U. Fleckinger II
Christopher R. Castellano

BWG News, Maryland Lawyers, MD Divorce AttorneyBWG NEWS

Articles & Resources, Legal, Cases, LinksARTICLES
Legal Articles
Link Resources
BWG Blog

CONTACT BWGContact Belli, Weil, & Grozbean for a Free Consultation
Contact Us
FREE Consultation*

Belli, Weil & Grozbean, P.C.
111 Rockville Pike, Ste 980
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(301) 738-5700 (phone)
(301) 738-5708 (fax)



Washington, DC Registry

Maryland Child Support Software

*Please Note: Telephone Conversation / consultation does not create an attorney client privilege and is only meant to provide general information. If you intend to create an attorney client relationship and privileges you must set an office appointment. Free consultation does not apply to employment matters. Free consultation for up to 10 minutes.

**Affiliate offices are separately owned and operated law firms. No other inference of connection is implied or represented. Law firm does not assume any responsibility or liability express or implied as to any other affiliate office.

***Credit card fees may apply.

Grandparents have rights in Maryland!

FREE CONSULTATION* (301) 738-5700



Mr. Grozbean was named "Who's Who" in 1998- 2005. He is now a life member of "Who's Who", a prestigious national recognition of outstanding professionals in the United States. He is also the developer of the Maryland child support guidelines program. His program is widely used by Judges, Masters and Lawyers in Maryland. Mr.Grozbean has provided valuable information and input to legislators in Maryland in the area of child support.

He is the developer of the Maryland child support guidelines program. His program is widely used by Judges, Masters and Lawyers in Maryland. Mr. Grozbean has provided valuable information and input to legislators in Maryland in the area of child support. When it comes time to negotiate or litigate his knowledge and experience as a general trial lawyer and Maryland divorce lawyer is what you need.


Grandparent rights are governed by § 9-102 of the Maryland Statute:

A recent appellate court decision has made it increasingly more difficult for grandparents to have visitation rights.

Glen Koshko, et ux. v. John Haining, et ux., No. 35, Sept. Term 2006

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.

Maryland Courts can and do order visitation to grandparents provided that the Court determines that such visitation is in the best interest of the children. The Court will look at various factors such as:

  1. Is it in the best interest of the child.
  2. What is the current and past relationship of the child with the grandparents.
  3. What impact (positive or negative) will the visitation have on the child.
  4. Will the visitation impact upon the educational and/or physical activities of the child.
  5. To determine what is in the child’s best interest, the Court will consider various factors, including the nature of the child’s relationship with the parents and grandparents, the potential benefits and detriments to granting visitation, the effect grandparent visitation would have on the child’s attachment to the family, the physical and emotional health of the parties, and the stability of the living and schooling arrangements for the child.

However, the Court now seems to place the decision on what is in the children's best interest squarely in the hands of the parents.

This process is generally left to the discretion of parents,who are presumed to act in the best interests of their children. The Court found this directinterference also to be substantial in nature. Although visitation matters may prove to be lessweighty than custody and adoption matters in the non-constitutional realm, for purposes of substantive due process analysis, third party visitation disputes impede just as substantially upon the fundamental right to parent as do custody and adoption disputes. In order to remedy this lack of narrow tailoring , the Court again employed the principle of constitutional avoidance and applied the GVS with a judicial gloss. This gloss requires a threshold finding of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances demonstrating the detriment that has or will be imposed on the children absent visitation by their grandparents before the best interests analysis may be engaged. This parental unfitness/exceptional circumstances test was imported from the third party custody case McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 869 A.2d 751 (2005). The Court reasoned that custody and visitation matters generally have been decided under the same standards and that the fundamental right to parent is equally at risk from undue state interference in the context of both custody and visitation determinations. Accordingly, the parental unfitness/exceptional circumstances safeguard imposed in third party custody determinations is appropriately applied in third p arty visitation matte rs as well. The Court thus overruled its precedent in Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 622 A.2d 121 (1993), and its progeny that held such threshold findings unnecessary in third party visitation cases. The Court remanded the case for application of the new threshold requirement.

These are some of the factors used in determining visitation. Always check with an attorney about your specific fact situation.

FREE CONSULTATION* (301) 738-5700

< Back to Articles

Our Attorneys Understand
Maryland Divorce Laws!


Top Maryland Lawyers
Belli, Weil & Grozbean | Top Attorneys in Maryland 2009