With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statutory duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the dependency of the child. Ex parte Linnell, 484 So.2d 455, 457 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (‘[Pjursuant to § 12-15-65, [Ala.Code 1975, ] a hearing on the merits of the petition itself is required to determine if the children are, in fact, dependent....’); see also Ex parte W.H., 941 So.2d 290, 299 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). If a juvenile court determines that the child is not dependent, the court must dismiss the dependency petition. Ala.Code 1975, former § 12-15-65(d). On the other hand, if, and only if, a juvenile court finds that the child is dependent, the court may then conduct proceedings to determine the custodial disposition of the child. Ala.Code 1975, former § 12-15-65. Ex parte K.S.G., 645 So.2d 297 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte J.R.W., 630 So.2d 447

A: holding that juvenile court that had never declared child dependent had no jurisdiction to enter order affecting visitation rights of father
B: holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child
C: holding that juvenile court never assumed jurisdiction to determine issue of custody of child when evidence revealed that there was no emergency situation rendering the child dependent as al leged in mothers petition
D: holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child
C.