of visitation rights in dissolution proceedings); 752.01(1) (relating to circumstances where (a) the marriage of the parents has been dissolved; (b) a parent has deserted the child; or (c) the child was born out of wedlock); of. § 61.13(7) (providing that “the court may recognize the grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child” when “the child is actually residing with a grandparent in a stable relationship”), Fla., Stat. (2004). The Florida Supreme Court has, however, “consistently held all 'statutes that have attempted to compel visitation or custody with a grandparent based solely on the best interest of the child standard ... to be unconstitutional.” Sullivan v. Sapp, 866 So.2d 28, 37 (Fla.2004) (<HOLDING>); see Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1036,
holding that person challenging statute as facially vague must show that the challenged law is unconstitutional in every possible application holding section 61132b2c facially unconstitutional holding texas flagdesecration statute facially unconstitutional holding facially unconstitutional provision in 1993 version of section 75201 which provided for visitation where one or both parents of a child were deceased holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction