modify the grandparents’ visitation rights as the mother requested does not mean that it had jurisdiction to redetermine, ab ini-tio, whether the grandparents should have been granted visitation rights — the previous visitation judgment ‘remain[ed] a custody determination of the state that issued it.’ ” 841 So.2d at 1257 (quoting Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-303 (Official Comment)). Although this case does not involve issues regarding interstate jurisdictional conflict, the reasoning in G.P. applies equally to this case. The mother should have raised any constitutional or other objections she had to the judgment awarding visitation rights to nonparents at the time that judgment was entered on August 5, 2009. See E.H.G. v. E.R.G., [Ms. 2071061, March 12, 2010] - So.3d -, - (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). However, the mother did not file a timely
holding that psychological parent was not entitled to custody or visitation holding that parent has custodial right to prevent visitation with nonparent holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights recognizing right of fit parent to prevent visitation by grandparents which right can only be overridden by court based on evidence that the prevention of the visitation would harm the child holding that uncertainty regarding amount of visitation ordered is fatal to the validity of a trial courts visitation  award