The following excerpt is from A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Service), 2008 BCCA 178 (CanLII):
The appellant argues that the express provisions for access in the CFCSA, and published policy standards and statements of the provincial government, indicate that the legislature intended that access orders be liberally granted when a child is in the continuing custody of the Director. She maintains that the principles developed in New Brunswick v. L.(M.) reflect the old legislation, and are inapplicable to this new statutory scheme. She claims that in determining whether to make an order for access, a judge is exercising discretion based on the evidence in the particular case, and is not bound by the principles of New Brunswick v. L.(M.) or any other authority.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.