grandchild through visitation rights can be a precious component of successful child rearing. Id. at 1017-18. The Bakers also contend that Lee's visitation was not "grandparent visitation" under the GVA and so could not survive the adoption because the pre-existing visitation order originated in the trial court overseeing the (subsequently terminated) guardianship. We find this argument to be a disingenuous attempt to defeat Lee's rights as a grandparent. It is because Lee is a grandparent of children born out of wedlock, and thus a qualifying relative under the GVA, that he was able to seek and obtain an order from the Scott Cireuit Court for visitation with the Children. See Ind.Code § 31-17-5-1(a)(8). See also In re Guardianship of J.E.M., 870 N.E.2d 517, 519 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (<HOLDING>). The visitation order from the guardianship
holding even when a request for an attorney is ambiguous it is incumbent upon law enforcement to seek clarification of the ambiguity before denying the statutory right to counsel recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts recognizing that section 5  is inapplicable when the parties have specified an exclusive arbitral forum but that forum is no longer available holding that a twoyear suspension of visitation privileges did not violate either the first amendments right to freedom of association recognizing we have consistently held that the gva is the exclusive method for grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren and that there is no longer an independent common law right for grandparents to seek visitation