With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 955 (Tex.1983) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). As discussed above, Judge Rynd initially rescinded the August 26, 2008 writ of habeas corpus at the beginning of the September 3, 2008 hearing, stating “I believe it’s not in the best interest of the child to have the writ of habeas corpus issued.” However, Judge Rynd’s final ruling, at the September 3, 2008 hearing, denied the writ on the finding that “there is a seriou .-San Antonio 1984, orig. proceeding) (finding that habeas corpus application was used inappropriately to decide final custody where later hearing was not contemplated). Moreover, the order does not provide Bradshaw with any visitation with, or access to, C.S.B., and is an improper denial of Bradshaw’s right to visitation with C.S.B. See In re Lau, 89 S.W.3d at 759-60 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Bradshaw’s fifth issue is

A: holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights
B: holding order was nonfinal where order reserved jurisdiction to determine integrallyrelated visitation and child support issues
C: holding order improperly denied relators right to visitation with his child
D: recognizing right of fit parent to prevent visitation by grandparents which right can only be overridden by court based on evidence that the prevention of the visitation would harm the child
C.