With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In re T.B., 177 N.C. App. 790, 792, 629 S.E.2d 895, 897 (2006). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1104(5) (2005), sets out the requirements for a petition for termination of parental rights and provides in relevant part that the petition “shall set forth . . . (5) The name and address of any person or agency to whom custody of the juvenile has been given by a court of this or any other state; and a copy of the custody order shall be attached to the petition or motion.” Respondent specifically relies upon In re Z.T.B., 170 N.C. App. 564, 613 S.E.2d 298 (2005), and In re T.B., 177 N.C. App. 790, 629 S.E.2d 895, in which this Court held that failure to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1104(5) divested the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Z.T.B., 170 N.C. App. 564, 613 S.E.2d 298 (<HOLDING>); In re T.B., 177 N.C. App. 790, 629 S.E.2d 895

A: holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed
B: holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined
C: holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court
D: holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
C.