With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". final determinations of a state court. See, e.g., District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311-12, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). This is true even when federal constitutional issues are at stake. See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir.1986). But the Mullinses have not asked the federal courts to review a final determination of any state court. Instead, they have launched a due process challenge to Oregon’s treatment of their claim to the adoption of their grandchildren. The juvenile court never considered the Mullinses’ constitutional claims. Nor could it have. See Adams v. Oregon State Children’s Services Div., 886 P.2d at 22-23 (<HOLDING>). As a result, this federal proceeding is

A: holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims
B: holding 1 record must affirmatively show summons with which juvenile was served for jurisdiction to vest in juvenile court and 2 no jurisdiction existed despite juveniles attendance because no affirmative showing of service was made
C: holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits
D: holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act
A.