Grandparent Visitation Rights in Spain: Which Psychosocial Arguments are Taken into Account to Grant or Deny Visits?

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess reports by psychologists and social workers in lawsuits regarding grandparent visitation rights in Barcelona (Spain). Seventy-three reports written during a five-year period were analysed Sixty-three per cent of cases recommended grandparents being granted visitation rights. A content analysis of the reports revealed that they were more likely to contain negative rather than positive comments about a family member (especially grandparents). Finally, the analysis showed that aspects such as grandparent abilities and a hidden agenda on the part of grandparents were associated with a recommendation that a visitation schedule be denied, whereas the presence of a strong bond between grandparents and the grandchild was related to a favourable recommendation. The article discusses directions for further research and the potential value of drawing up guidelines to assess grandparent rights in the event of family conflict.

Introduction

The importance of grandparents fulfilling family functions has increased due to social and demographical changes (Bengtson, 2001; Margolis, 2016). Research has generally found that the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren may have beneficial effects for both parties. Having regular contact with and caring for their grandchildren is an important source of satisfaction for grandparents (Thiele & Whelan, 2008). In the case of grandchildren, having a stable relationship with grandparents can boost their wellbeing and help them in their identity formation by sharing values and culture-specific practices (Sellers & Milton, 2007; Wiscott & Kopera-Frye, 2000). Grandparents can also have an indirect influence on their grandchildren's development by providing emotional and instrumental support for parents and through acting as a role model in child-rearing (Saraceno, 2008).

There is a wide diversity in grandparent–grandchild relationships depending on variables such as age, gender, geographical distance, family line, or relationships with the middle generation (Uhlenberg & Hammill, 1998). Also, changes in the family structure could affect this relationship. That is the case when a separation or divorce occurs in the middle generation. From a family systems perspective, divorce forces grandparents to redefine their role in the family and their relationship with family members. For instance, supporting their child throughout the divorce process and keeping emotional links and avoiding estrangement with their grandchildren become important concerns for grandparents (Barth, 2004).

In the best scenario, grandparents may continue to be a beneficial force for their grandchildren, acting as mediators to ensure a supportive and protective atmosphere, or as a source of emotional and instrumental support to their children and grandchildren (Doyle, O'Dywer & Timonen, 2010; O'Dwyer, Doyle, Moore, & Timonen, 2012). Studies have shown that the presence of such input from grandparents during the divorce process predicts better psychological adjustment of their grandchildren to the post-divorce family structure (Henderson, Hayslip, Sanders, & Louden, 2009; Jappens &Van Bavel, 2016).

However, grandparents may also suffer the negative consequences of the rupture, particularly when the divorce is marked by conflict. Indeed, the divorce literature has highlighted how custodial parents sometimes restrict or make it difficult for grandparents to visit and have regular contact with their grandchildren, or may even block it entirely, thus leading to deterioration in the grandparent–grandchild relationship (Ahrons, 2007; Jappens &Van Bavel, 2016; Kruk, 1994). Due to the matrilineal advantage in family relationships, paternal grandparents are more at risk of having little or no contact with their grandchildren in post-divorce families (Sims & Rofail, 2013; Westphal, Poortman, & Van der Lippe, 2015). The negative impact of such disengagement could be intense to both members of the dyad, especially if there was a good relationship before the divorce (Kruk, 1994). Some studies have found that grandparents experienced more depressive symptoms after their child's divorce if the relationship with grandchildren was weakened (Drew & Silverstein, 2007).

The growing importance of grandparents in their grandchildren's lives and their weak position when family conflict arises have been the main motives for enacting laws and statutes that guarantee their rights (Hill, 2000, 2001). One of these laws is the visitation right statute, which allows grandparents to request a court-ordered intervention in order to establish a visitation schedule with respect to their grandchildren. Introduced in a number of states in the United States since the 1960s, other countries have also enacted similar laws more recently. In Spain, a law on visitation rights was established in 2003 (law 42/2003, 21th November) and involved modifying the Civil Code in order to protect grandparent–grandchild relationships and the grandparents’ right to visits in case of separation, nullity, and divorce in the middle generation.

However, enactment of this kind of law has not been straightforward. For instance, concern have been expressed that this statute could create a new source of stress for children, since it opens the door to their instrumentalization by family members in dispute, and may place them in the midst of a family combat and a conflict of loyalties (Newman, 2004; Nielson & Bucaria, 2009; Victor & Middleditch, 2009). Another difficulty lies in the criteria used to analyse and resolve cases. Although any such resolution should be guided by the principle of the child's best interests, determining what those interests are in the context of family conflict is open to interpretation. For example, a set of papers by Henderson and colleagues analysed the impact of the visitation rights statute by examining how judges argue in reaching their final decision in these kinds of pleas. The results show that few grandparents have filed for court-ordered visitation, and most often the final decision was against the grandparents’ request. Henderson (2005a, 2005b) emphasizes how, in most cases, judges used a traditional view of the family, one in which the right and wisdom that parents have over their offspring, prevails over grandparents’ bond with their grandchildren. Moreover, the benefits that having contact with grandparents may have on the grandchild's development were rarely taken into account.

Authors such as Thompson, Tinsley, Scalora, and Parke (1989) proposed that this situation could be clarified if there were more explicit and well-articulated guidelines for judicial determination of the child's best interests in visitation disputes. One way to achieve this aim might be to study how these kinds of cases are assessed in practice and to consider what kind of evidence and arguments they take into account. In Spain, most of that evidence is provided by what are known as SATAF teams (family assessment teams), which offer advice to judges in family issues. They are comprised mainly of psychologists and social workers. At a judge's request, the SATAF team writes a report that, in the case of grandparent visitation rights, contains reasoned advice about the advisability or otherwise of granting such rights. To support their conclusion, SATAF teams collect evidence from different sources, including family members, neighbours, teachers, or other professionals (e.g., doctors or psychologists). The judge's decision will be based on this report, and nearly always the advice of SATAF is followed. Consequently, the analysis of these kinds of reports might provide useful information about the importance ascribed to certain contextual aspects, attitudes, and behaviours of the different parties involved in the case, as well as about how professionals decide whether such factors might affect the grandchildren's wellbeing and guarantee (or not) their best interests.

In light of the above, the present study is aimed at exploring what kind of arguments are used by professionals in assessment reports submitted in court cases in which grandparents ask for visitation rights and establishing the influence that different kinds of arguments have on the final recommendation made in such reports, that is, whether they encourage or discourage the judge to approve a visitation regime for grandparents.

Method

Sample and Instrument

The study analysed 73 SATAF reports submitted in cases of grandparents who filed for court-ordered visitation of their grandchildren. These accounted for all reports of this kind that were presented at the Barcelona Court of Justice during the period 2004–2009. Reports were written by SATAF members, who sum up the process of collecting evidences and, based on these evidences, give a reasoned advice to the judge.

Of the reports analysed, 63% (46 cases) recommended a grandparent–grandchild visitation schedule. Only in 27 cases did the SATAF team not recommend grandparent visitation. However, it is worth noting that 34% of those reports that ended up recommending a visitation schedule also advised the use of a meeting point – for example, a social services office – where parents leave their children and grandparents pick them up, there being no contact whatsoever between grandparents and parents.

The mean age of grandparents involved was 65.21 years (SD = 10.04, range = 40–85), and there were more paternal (58.9%) than maternal grandparents. Grandparents sued mothers (48.57% of the cases), fathers (17.14%), or both members of the couple (31.43%). The mean age of sued parents was 37.69 years (SD = 10.29). Only in two cases did grandparents sue other grandparents, those who had custody of the grandchildren. As for the grandchildren involved, 67.2% of cases requested a visitation schedule for just one grandchild, 30% requested visitation rights for two grandchildren, and 2.7% concerned three or more grandchildren. The average age of grandchildren involved in court litigations was 8.08 years (SD = 3.6). In many cases these grandchildren lived in the same city as the grandparent who initiated the court process (43.8% of cases).

In most cases (60.3%) the grandparents’ request was motivated by divorce in the middle generation, followed by 11 cases (15,1%) involving the death of one parent, 7 (9.6%) the absence of one parent, and 4 cases (5.5%) imprisonment of one or both parents.

SATAF reports written at a judge's request consisted of three parts. The first included the judicial data, namely a description of the socio-demographic characteristics of the different family members involved in the case and the reasons for the grandparents’ request. The second part provided more detailed information about the case, including the history of family relationships, the social context of the case, the motives and expectations of each family member involved, and their stance and opinions towards the grandparents’ visitation request. This information was gathered through different methods and from different people. In the reports analysed here, an interview was by far the most frequent data-gathering technique. Of the 73 cases, 72 interviewed at least one of the grandparents who had initiated the process, while parents were interviewed in 71 of the 73 cases. By contrast, only 27.4% of cases included data derived from interviews with grandchildren. In almost a third of cases (32.9%), information was requested from the child's school, while 24.7% of cases included information from the psychologist who had dealt with the case. The final part of SATAF reports summarized the main findings and set out the arguments on which the recommendation to the judge was based (i.e., a recommendation to deny or grant the grandparents’ request). The present study only considered this final part of the reports, the mean length of which was 426.7 words (SD = 142.7).

Procedure

Members of the SATAF teams contacted the first author of this article asking for an external assessment of their work in relation to grandparent visitation litigations. SATAF members asked for formal authorization from the Department of Justice of the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya), the administrative body to which the justice courts in Barcelona are accountable. Once such authorization had been granted, the SATAF members selected from the corresponding database all cases related to grandparent visitation requests that were heard during the period 2004–2009.

Seventy-three cases were identified, and the final part of the corresponding assessment reports was retrieved and included in the analysis. Before the research team had access to a copy of the reports, all names, locations, and any kind of information that could lead to the identification of those involved in the case were removed from report transcriptions to ensure anonymity. The reports were analysed on premises belonging to SATAF, since for reasons of confidentiality the removal of reports (or even of copies) was not allowed by the Department of Justice.

Data analysis

A content analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was performed in order to identify key themes in the final section of the assessment report, where arguments to support or deny visitations are presented. First, the researchers read all the texts, identifying ideas or arguments (units of meaning) in each one. The next step involved grouping these units by theme or category based on repetition or the similarity of threads of meaning or key words in the unit (Luborsky, 1994; Owen, 1984). A hierarchically structured category system was then established. At the specific level, categories were inductively differentiated according to the meanings expressed in the reports. Afterwards, at the more general level, specific, first-order categories were grouped into broader, second-order categories. These second-order categories express who the subject of the idea or argument was (i.e., grandparent, parent, or grandchild) and whether the argument was positive (i.e., it conveys a positive quality, trait, or behaviour of the individual in question) or negative. This hierarchical structure of categories enabled both fine differentiation and the combination of categories, depending on the number of variables that the researcher wished to examine. To increase the reliability of results, the process of categorization was conducted independently by two researchers. The first- and second-order categories obtained by each researcher were compared, and any differences were negotiated until a consensus on the category system was reached.

Once the categories had been obtained and defined, the researchers independently read the full list of units of meaning again and assigned them to a category in the system. The resulting codes were cross-checked, and any disagreements were identified and used to correct the limits of the categories and to modify their definitions until the researchers agreed on a final version of the categorization (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1995). In those discussion meetings two members of the SATAF team were also present.

The final step involved an independent judge who had not participated in the initial process, who was not informed about the nature of the study or its aims and was blind to the recommendation made by the SATAF in their reports. This judge was provided with a copy of the original units of meaning and the final version of the first-order category system (including 27 categories and their corresponding definitions). He was then asked to assign units of meaning to the categories. This independent categorization was then compared with the original one and yielded a kappa index of .78, indicating acceptable inter-coder reliability (Neuendorf, 2002).

Using SPSS, logistic regressions were then run for first- and second-order categories in a multivariate analysis, including categories as predictive variables and the final recommendation (supporting or denying a visitation schedule) as the dependent variable. This analysis was used to address the second objective of the study. It was not conducted to infer causality but, rather, to determine characteristics that were uniquely associated with the likelihood of supporting or not the establishment of a visitation schedule.

Results

Arguments used by the SATAF team were classified according to who they referred to (grandparents, parents, or grandchildren) and whether the argument expressed a positive or negative quality (see Table 1). Arguments expressing negative qualities were more frequent (66.4%) than positive ones.

Table 1.

Frequency of first- and second-order categories referring to the arguments present in reports.

First-order categories	Frequency (N = 73)	%	Second-order categories	Frequency
Negative grandparent (g1) qualities	53	23.77	Abilities/skills	23
			Feelings	18
			Little or no bond with g3	17
			Hidden agenda	15
			No empathy with g3	12
			Mistaken role beliefs	12
			Physical/mental health problems	7
Negative parent (g2) qualities	49	21.97	Reluctance to allow grandparent visits	27
			Abilities/skills	21
			Feelings	14
			Negative transmission to g3	12
			No empathy with g3	7
Negative grandchild (g3) qualities	46	20.63	Instrumentalization	32
			Negativity towards g1	12
			Health	7
			Age	6
Positive grandparent (g1) qualities	33	14.80	Strong bond with g3	18
			Strong empathy with g3	16
			Willingness to accept agreement	13
			Absence of risk for g3	8
Positive grandchild (g3) qualities	24	10.76	Keeping his/her origins	14
			Willing to see g1	7
			Age	5
			Stability in his/her life	3
Positive parent (g2) qualities	18	8.07	Willing to allow visits	12
			Putting needs of g3 first	4
			Positive comments about g1	4

Note: g1: grandparent; g2: parents; g3: grandchildren.

Arguments focused on grandparents’ negative arguments.

Among the negative arguments, those attributed to grandparents were the most frequent (23.77%; see Table 1). SATAF reports identified in grandparents a lack of (or negative) abilities or skills for dealing with the situation or as regards their relationship with other family members [Paternal grandmother has difficulties managing the conflict with her son, and in maintaining the relationship with him. She lacks empathy towards other relatives and has few strategies for coping with or resolving the family conflict. (2006_01)]. Negative feelings such as hostility, resentment, or fear were also frequently mentioned [The grandmother expresses an intense fear of loss. When such losses do occur, this fear blocks her coping behavior. (2009_05)].

Other negative aspects identified in grandparents included the lack of a bond with grandchildren [There has been no relationship between paternal grandparents and the minor for the last five years. (2008_13)], the existence of a hidden agenda [The grandmother does not show a very strong motivation to visit her grandson, since she mainly wants to use such visits to see her son again and to improve her relationship with him. (2007_19)], or a lack of empathy with their grandchildren [The maternal grandfather has difficulties understanding his grandchild's needs, putting them before his own needs, and connecting with his emotions. (2008_11)]. Categories expressing negative qualities of grandparents that were less often mentioned included the presence of mistaken beliefs about their role as grandparents, such as believing that they had the same rights as the child's parents [His own personal history leads him mistakenly to think that the minor belongs to his household and to his own nuclear family (2005_06)], or the presence of physical or mental health problems severe enough to pose a risk to the relationship with the grandchild [There is a probable undiagnosed mental illness in the grandmother. Her lack of contact with reality could affect the emotional stability of her granddaughter. (2008_06)].

Grandparents’ positive arguments

Some of these ideas also appear when the reports identify positive qualities of grandparents. For instance, 18 reports include references to a strong bond between grandparents and grandchildren [The grandmother has accurate knowledge about her granddaughter, whom she describes in highly favourable and affectionate terms. (2008_14)]. Also mentioned among the positive qualities of grandparents are their empathy [The paternal grandparents understand their grandson's needs and are concerned about his behaviour. (2004_03)], their willingness to accept any kind of agreement [Although they do not understand their son's motives for remaining distant from them, they are willing to accept his terms, and their priority is being able to reestablish contact with their granddaughters. (2005_10)], and the absence of any risk to the grandchildren [There is nothing in the grandparents’ behaviour to suggest any risk to the minor were visits to be set up. (2005_13)].

Arguments focused on parents

Parents’ negative arguments

Among the negative references to parents (21.97% of the total ideas), the most frequent refer to their reluctance towards or opposition to the grandparents’ visits [The mother thinks that by preventing visits she is protecting her children, and she instils this idea in them. (2005_09)]. There is also mention of parents’ feelings of resentment and lack of emotional involvement with grandparents [The parents feel abandoned and unloved by the grandparents, and this makes them suffer. (2008_02)], the parents’ lack of ability in dealing with other relatives or coping with the family conflict [The children's mother has a very inflexible view of the relationship with the paternal side of the family, and she is not willing to change it. (2007_21)], and a lack of empathy between parents and grandchildren [The parents are quite rigid about visits. They have not thought about how such visits might actually benefit their children. (2004_02)]. Ideas regarding how parents transmit to their children negative ideas or feelings about the grandparents were also found [The grandchild may be receiving information from his mother that is affecting his view of the grandparent. (2005_06)].

Parents’ positive arguments

SATAF members also identified positive qualities of parents in their reports, although these were mentioned much less frequently (only 8.07% of the total comments on parents). These positive comments focused on a willingness to allow the grandparent to visit [Although she anticipates difficulties, the minor's mother is willing to accept a process that would lead to increased contact between her son and his grandparents. (2005_13)], prioritizing the grandchild's needs [Despite the conflict between mother and grandmother, she (the mother) is aware that keeping her son away from that conflict and avoiding criticizing his grandmother in his presence will be good for his future. (2008_14)], and the parent's ability to recognize some good qualities in the grandparent [The parents acknowledge the positive role that the grandparents have had in terms of caring for their grandchildren in the past. (2009_11)].

Arguments focused on grandchildren

Grandchildren's negative arguments

With respect to the grandchildren, the most frequent negative aspect identified in the SATAF reports is the risk of their instrumentalization, in other words, of their being used as a weapon by one family member against another. Such instrumentalization could lead to a conflict of loyalty that might cause suffering and distress among grandchildren [The grandson is in a difficult emotional situation, since both grandparents and parents are trying to get him on their side. This is a difficult conflict for him to solve and implies a questioning of his bond with, and affection towards, both the parents and grandparents. (2009_01)]. In 12 cases there was a rejection of grandparents [The granddaughter is well adapted to her context and has established good quality bonds. However, she does not accept her paternal figure and, consequently, neither does she accept the paternal grandparent figure. (2005_15)]. Less frequent references were made to physical or mental health problems [The grandchild is suffering great distress that is affecting his ability to adapt and behave positively in academic and relationship contexts (2004_05)] or to age [The granddaughter is experiencing some of the confusion and rebelliousness typically associated with adolescence (2009_07)].

Grandchildren's positive arguments

Positive qualities of grandchildren were also mentioned in reports. The most frequent reference was to the preservation of family roots as a positive influence on the grandchildren's development [Losing contact with the maternal grandparents would be a loss for the minor. Coming on top of her mother's death, it would constitute a significant absence in her development. (2005_03)]. Some grandchildren were also willing to have contact with their grandparents [The granddaughter wants to see her grandmother, but she's afraid of her mother's reaction. (2007_21)]. References were also made to age [Taking into account the grandson's age, this is an ideal moment to slowly foster his bond with the paternal grandparents. (2009_05)] or to the stability in grandchildren's life [The grandchild is adapted to his family, academic, and social context. These resources could help ensure that the introduction of paternal grandparents as new figures in his life is not going to cause any harm. (2009_05)].

Predictors of the final recommendation

Table 2 shows the odds ratios for all the superordinate categories considered in the analysis. Reference to negative and positive grandparent qualities in reports increased and decreased, respectively, the probability of grandparent visits being refused. Reports that included mention of negative grandparent qualities were 6.5 times more likely to recommend that visits be denied. By contrast, when positive qualities of grandparents were noted, the odds of such visits being refused fell by 80%. In contrast to the findings for grandparent qualities, the reference to parent and grandchild qualities seemed not to have a significant influence on the conclusion of the report.

Table 2.

Logistic regression of superordinate categories in relation to the decision to refuse a grandparent visitation regime.

Category	Odds ratio	95% CI
Negative g1 qualities	6.545*	[0.99, 43.06]
Positive g1 qualities	0.202*	[0.05, 0.83]
Negative g2 qualities	0.472	[0.12, 1.92]
Positive g2 qualities	0.202	[0.02, 2.087]
Negative g3 qualities	1.001	[0.27, 3.72]
Positive g3 qualities	0.458	[0.12, 1.76]
Model sum. χ2 (df, p)	27.967 (6, <.0001)
Log likelihood	64.420
Nagelkerke	0.468

Note: g1: grandparent; g2: parents; g3: grandchildren.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Given these results, the next step was to explore which grandparent qualities were the most influential as regards the conclusions of the SATAF report. As for negative qualities (see Table 3), only two categories had a statistically significant impact on the decision recommended by the report. Specifically, the lack of (or negative) abilities or skills in the grandparent increased 4.2-fold the odds of a visitation schedule being refused, while the identification of a hidden agenda among the grandparents increased this probability by almost eight times.

Table 3.

Logistic regression of negative grandparent qualities in relation to the decision to refuse a grandparent visitation regime.

Category	Odds ratio	95% CI
Abilities/skills	4.234*	[1.18, 16.04]
Feelings	2.851	[0.68, 12.76]
Little or no bond with g3	1.688	[0.39, 7.19]
Hidden agenda	7.915**	[1.74, 35.91]
No empathy with g3	4.349	[0.73, 25.91]
Mistaken role beliefs	0.486	[0.08, 3.10]
Physical/mental health problems	4.036	[0.52, 31.38]
Model sum. χ2 (df, p)	24.301 (7, <.001)
Log likelihood	66.950
Nagelkerke	0.435

Note: g1: grandparent; g2: parents; g3: grandchildren.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

With respect to positive grandparent qualities, all the categories followed the expected direction, but only the mention of a strong bond with grandchildren reached statistical significance. When such a bond was detected by the SATAF team, the probability of a visitation schedule being refused fell by 76% (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Logistic regression of positive grandparent qualities in relation to the decision to refuse a grandparent visitation regime.

Category	Odds ratio	95% CI
Strong bond with g3	0.136*	[0.02, 0.72]
Strong empathy with g3	0.094	[0.06, 1.37]
Willingness to accept agreement	0.598	[0.36, 9.90]
Absence of risk for g3	0.920	[0.09, 9.11]
Model sum. χ2 (df, p)	18.182 (5, <.01)
Log likelihood	74.859
Nagelkerke	0.326

Note: g1: grandparent; g2: parents; g3: grandchildren.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

The analysis shows that SATAF reports included arguments and assessments centred on each member of the relational triangle (grandparents, parents, grandchildren), reflecting the systemic nature of the family. However, arguments referring to grandparents (both negative and positive) were more frequent than were arguments referring to parents or grandchildren. Since it is the grandparents who have taken the case to court, SATAF reports were particularly detailed when it came to assessing their suitability for the visiting rights recognized by law.

Regardless of the generation on which they are focused, the arguments used by the SATAF team are clearly based on the standard of the child's best interests, the aim being to predict the extent to which visits might have a positive or negative effect on the grandchild's life. To this end, the team assesses the family relationship network using psychological concepts such as bond (the extent to which grandparents are attached to their grandchildren and vice versa), empathy, instrumentalization, and the presence of “correct” feelings, abilities, and beliefs about their role. The grandparents’ attitude towards the hypothetical concession of a visitation regime is also taken into account by the SATAF team, as this could predict future conflicts. Indicators of the use of more restrictive standards, such as the “harm standard”, which require evidence that denying grandparent visits could harm the grandchildren (Cowan, 2007), are scarcely present in the reports.

Most of the ideas identified in the analysis are negative ones: that is, they refer to arguments concerning a quality, attitude, or behaviour that is a hindrance or which makes the family situation more difficult. The relative predominance of negative arguments is understandable in that the family situation is by definition marked by conflict, as otherwise the case would not have been brought to court. However, if we take into account that most reports ended up recommending the establishment of a visitation regime, it seems that the presence of certain difficulties in the family does not in itself prevent such visits. In other words, the SATAF team considers that some difficulties are not severe enough to deny a visitation regime, or it may be felt that these aspects could improve in the future. Alternatively, the team may conclude that some difficulties are compensated for by other positive aspects. Knowing which arguments had the greatest influence on the final decision was also analysed in the study.

In this respect, the reports once again seemed to be quite grandparent-oriented, and the only arguments that significantly influenced the final decision were those referring to grandparent qualities. These qualities, whether positive or negative, were the most decisive when it came to determining whether a visitation regime should be recommended or not. In terms of negative aspects, the lack of certain abilities or wanting visits for the wrong reasons (i.e., having a hidden agenda) were the most decisive arguments used to deny visits. On the positive side, the strong bond between grandparents and grandchildren was a significant predictor of a favourable decision towards visits. The arguments raised by SATAF members also seemed to reinforce an specific view of what is grandparent’ role in the family: they underline the value of a strong bond and attachment, the capacity to prioritize the needs of their grandchildren and the middle generation above their own needs, showing good coping skills in face of adversity, and, at the same time, not interfering with what is considered to be ‘parental duties’. Such view of grandparents seems to mirror the cultural norms about their role that have been widely discussed in the academic literature (e.g. Mason, May, & Carke, 2007). Although our results are not conclusive at all, they suggest that grandparents conforming to those social norms are more likely to be granted visitation rights than others who appear to deviate from them.

At all events, it should also be noted that the assessment process in Spanish cases of grandparent requests for visitation rights is less dependent on parenting rights (i.e., on the attitude of parents as legal tutors of their underage children) than has been reported in other countries, particularly the United States (Henderson, 2005a). The analysis of this sample of Spanish psychosocial reports suggests: (a) that recommending visits is far more common; (b) the criteria used take a rather optimistic stance based on the child's best interest, at the same time as recognizing the grandparents’ rights, as established by law, and the potentially beneficial role that grandparents may play in their grandchildren's development; and (c) as a consequence, reports are quite grandparent-centred, and the assessment of grandparents’ behaviours, abilities, and attitudes carries considerable weight in the final recommendation.

There are, however, a number of limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting these results, and these would need to be addressed in future research. First, the focus solely on the visitation rights in Barcelona (Spain) and the potential differences among cultures in decisions regarding visitation rights limit the generalizability of our results. Cultural differences in family structure and functions make not totally comparable our results with findings coming from other countries. Moreover, this research was focused on a specific moment in the family process of conflict. Longitudinal studies would be needed to ascertain what kind of future implications on grandparent–grandchild relationships certain legal decisions might have.

Despite these limitations, the study does have implications for practice. The arguments used by the SATAF team (the presence of a hidden agenda, grandparent–grandchild bond, conflicts of loyalty, the behaviours and feelings of all family members, among others) could be used to help draw up formal guidelines to facilitate family assessments in the event of conflict related to grandparent–grandchild visitation rights. Second, conflict between generations is not necessarily a barrier to allowing contact between grandparents and grandchildren. Mediation processes such as the “meeting point” used in some of the cases studied here, or a more formal mediation process as suggested in the law literature (Degoldi, 2008; Nielson & Bucaria, 2009; Victor & Middleditch, 2009), could be a useful step to implement before a case reaches court. This could help to reduce the likelihood of instrumentalization and the use of hidden agenda strategies, which have been shown here to be used by both parents and grandparents. Whatever the case, the best strategy must always bear in mind the impact that a litigation process would have on grandchildren's wellbeing and how important it is for the minors involved to maintain the bond with both sides of the family (Henderson et al., 2009).

Finally, more research is needed to understand how the range of family dynamics and structures now found in society may affect the relationship with the older generation. How aging families cope and relate during times of conflict and ambivalence, such as divorce and stepfamily formation, are issues that need to be addressed scientifically (Clarke, Preston, Raksin, & Bengtson, 1999; Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). In addition, it would be interesting to obtain longitudinal data about the consequences of visitation rights for different members of the family. Such data would help to determine whether the open, grandparent–centred kind of recommendations identified in this study do indeed have real beneficial effects for families in conflict and, particularly, for grandchildren.

Acknowledgements

This paper is included in a research project in which Maria Teresa Sulla, Olga Moragas, and Rosa Baeza also participated.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no declarations of interest