Reading through the discussion here I think we're sticking on what is a very minor point in reality. Do GP have a right to enter their children's married home and participate in babycare?
It's not about 'rights'. It's about relationships. When a DIL enters the in-law's family, she considers it 'decent' if she's welcomed. Whether she has a 'right' to expect that doesn't come into it because it's a relational context, not a court context. If you're close to me, for example, I consider it 'decent' to give you hospitality and fulfil certain obligations to you. If things got to the point where we were all banging on about 'rights', I'd consider the relationship in serious difficulty and start thinking twice about it. So a good access arrangement has to start with a constructive attitude and an open hand, on both sides.
When I had my DD, I wanted everyone who knew her to love her, despite the fact that I knew my PIL detested me and made it clear to my husband that they would rather he divorced. More than having a good relationship with PIL, I wanted our family to be sustainable and to have healthy boundaries. This is a foundation stone of a good relationship and is indicative of a wise, sensible DIL, not someone with an attitude problem. But I think my PIL were waiting to see how I'd make it difficult for them... for example, at my instigation, they were invited them to the hospital on the day after my C section. My FIL, having agreed to this in advance, then booked a business appointment that afternoon and announced he wanted to send his MIL in his place. Two and a half weeks later, PIL was making furious phone calls, declaring vehemently that grandparents have rights and could get those rights in court - if they wished to, which he didn't of course... Our crime? My MIL wanted my DD to be taken to a family function sixty miles away, on DH's day off. At that time I couldn't walk, hadn't been downstairs since returning from hospital and was practically drooling with pain medication. I couldn't give a damn about their rights.
Nothing - but nothing comes before a rested, peaceful family unit.
So we introduced a rule. You don't get the baby if you're not playing a supportive role in the life of the family. In that context, PIL didn't have a 'right' to see our DD - they had a responsibility to support us and to be loving grandparents to DD. Similarly, we have a responsibility to create as nurturing an environment for DD as we can - and that would ideally involve having PIL's involvement. Of course it would.
But we couldn't make it work. With hindsight, my PIL's inclination to believe I would deny them access to our DD made them more suspicious and resentful than ever. I think it would have been a lot easier if the concept of grandparents' rights had never occurred to them. Realising that all things were never going to change, we decided that our DD was better off without all the aggro, on balance, so we drew a line in the sand and walked away. There's not a day goes by that I think about it and wonder if I couldn't make it work, because I know the loss and sadness this estrangement has created. But at the end of the day, we had our DD to raise her well, not to make anyone happy - not us and certainly not our parents.
I think the grandparents' rights issue is backfiring - since it's only enforceable if a relationship is already in place, a lot of parents who aren't sure if they can keep contact are simply withdrawing to be on the safe side. That was certainly a factor in our decision.