See Sullivan, 829 So.2d at 952. In addition to Richardson, the district court noted that the reasoning outlined in Beagle, Von Eiff, and Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2000), supported the conclusion that section 61.13(2)(b)2.c. "is facially unconstitutional in that it intrudes on the father's fundamental privacy right to raise his child free from governmental interference." Sullivan, 829 So.2d at 952.

Stone, J. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of Smith's petition for grandparent visitation based on Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2000). Smith sought grandparent visitation pursuant to section 752.01(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), stating that her grandchild had been born out of wedlock.

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 section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c) facially unconstitutional); see Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1036, 1043 (Fla. 2000) (holding section 61.13(7) unconstitutional on its face); Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26, 29 (Fla. 2000) (holding facially unconstitutional provision of section 752.01(1) relating to visitation where child was born out of wedlock); Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510, 517 (Fla. 1998) (holding facially unconstitutional provision in 1993 version of section 752.01 which provided for visitation where one or both parents of a child were deceased); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla. 1996) (holding facially unconstitutional provision in 1993 version of section 752.01 which provided for visitation where child was living with both natural parents). In Lonon v. Ferrell, 739 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), we likewise held facially unconstitutional the provision of 752.01(1) authorizing grandparent visitation where the marriage of the child's parents had been dissolved.

Although we have previously held unconstitutional numerous Florida statutes providing for grandparent visitation as violative of Florida's right of privacy, the question presented here is not whether the Grandparents are entitled to visitation under Florida law, but whether Florida is required to enforce the Colorado order despite the fact that entry of a similar judgment by a Florida court under the same circumstances would be prohibited by the Florida Constitution, and the answer is yes.See Sullivan v. Sapp , 866 So.2d 28, 37 (Fla. 2004) ; Richardson v. Richardson , 766 So.2d 1036, 1043 (Fla. 2000) ; Saul v. Brunetti , 753 So.2d 26, 29 (Fla. 2000) ; Von Eiff v. Azicri , 720 So.2d 510, 517 (Fla. 1998) ; Beagle v. Beagle , 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla. 1996). We have not considered the constitutionality of the current limited grandparent visitation provision, section 752.011, Florida Statutes (2015).

We have previously held various provisions of chapter 752 unconstitutional on the grounds that the statute does not require a demonstration of harm to the child prior to the award of grandparental visitation rights. See, e.g., Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2000); Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1998); Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1996); see also Sullivan v. Sapp, 866 So.2d 28, 35-38 (Fla. 2004) (discussing this Court's case law regarding chapter 752 as well as section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2001)). Thus, the form is obsolete and is hereby deleted.

However, the court later disavowed this limitation and extended its analysis to situations where the child's parents never married and never lived together. ( Saul v.Brunetti (Fla. 2000) 753 So.2d 26, 28-29.) It also later applied this analysis to hold that an order transferring custody to grandparents based merely on a child's best interests violates the constitutional rights of a divorced custodial parent, even if the noncustodial parent supports the grandparents' request.

Premising judicial involvement on the mere fact that the custodial parent of such a child does not presently live with the child's other biological parent is utterly unwarranted. See Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26, 28 (Fla. 2000) (fact that child's parents "were never married should not change this Court's analysis of the constitutionality of this [visitation] statute").

This Court has declared different provisions within section 752.01 unconstitutional. See Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2000) (declaring unconstitutional section 752.01(1)(d) concerning grandparent visitation where the minor child is born out of wedlock); Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1998) (declaring unconstitutional section 752.01(1)(a) concerning grandparent visitation where one or both parents are deceased);Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1996) (declaring facially unconstitutional section 752.01(1)(e) concerning grandparent visitation with minor child living with both natural parents). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a Washington statute granting grandparents the right to petition for visitation rights "whenever visitation may serve the best interest of the child" unconstitutionally infringed on the parents' fundamental right to rear and "make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."

Beagle, 678 So. 2d at 1276; see also VonEiff v. Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510, 514 (Fla. 1998) (holding another provision permitting grandparent visitation when one or both parents are deceased, based solely on the best interest of the minor child, without first requiring proof of demonstrable harm to the child, was unconstitutional); Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So. 2d 26, 28–9 (Fla.2000) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to a provision permitting grandparent visitation when the child was born out of wedlock). In Richardson our supreme court struck down a statute that permitted a court to "recognize the grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child," finding it a violation of parents' state constitutional right to rear their children.

, was unconstitutional); Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2000) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to a provision permitting grandparent visitation when the child was born out of wedlock).