With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no counseling and no transportation. The testimony, however, reveals that DHR held 10 ISP meetings, that DHR established a list of goals for the mother to reach, that DHR referred the mother to the Calhoun County Family Drug Court Program, that DHR provided the mother with a drug assessment that the mother did not complete until April 2014, that DHR paid for the mother’s substance abuse counseling at New Directions, that DHR provided the children with counseling, that DHR provided the mother with visitation, and that DHR provided the mother with transportation to visits. The record supports a conclusion that DHR did make reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the children and that the mother did not make sufficient progress. See J.P. v. S.S., 989 So.2d 591, 601 (Ala.Civ.App.2008)(<HOLDING>). The juvenile court could have also been

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 dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing
C: holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child
D: holding that the juvenile court could have concluded that dhr had made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child
D.