and case law, it possessed no authority to compel visitation between a child and a person who is not a parent. Further, the court ruled that Florida law does not recognize a claim for specific performance of a contract for visitation with an unrelated third party. Because we are considering a question of law in determining whether the allegations of a complaint state a cause of action, we review an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action by the de novo standard of review. Agu lding that, because no compelling state interest underlies grandparent visitation statute, such a statute is unconstitutional as an impermissible government interference in a parent’s fundamental right to rear a child); Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1036, 1039-40 (Fla.2000)(<HOLDING>). In adopting the explicit constitutional right
holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard holding that when children had resided with grandparents for several months during pendency of divorce proceedings grandparents had standing to intervene and seek managing conservatorship under former section 102004b and section 1020039 holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing courts to recognize grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child where the child actually resided with the grandparents in a stable relationship holding that where father who killed his wife had relinquished his children for adoption prior to his conviction the maternal grandparents of the children who had legal custody at the time of the adoption had standing to petition to unseal the adoption records this court vacated the orphans courts order that held the grandparents lacked standing and directed that on remand the orphans court determine whether the grandparents had shown cause under section 2905a to unseal the records holding that grandparents standing to bring suit under a custody statute was not a jurisdictional question that the court of appeals could raise on its own motion