With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and explained that “[b]ecause the law presumes parents will perform their obligations to their children, it presumes their prior right to custody, but this is not an absolute right.” Id. This Court further explained that “[w]hen a parent neglects the welfare and interest of his child, he waives his usual right of custody.” Id. at 437, 119 S.E.2d at 191. See also Wilson v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 676, 677, 153 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1967) (stating that “[w]hile it is true that a parent, if a fit and suitable person, is entitled to the custody of his child, it is equally true that where fitness and suitability are absent he loses this right”); In re Gibbons, 247 N.C. 273, 280, 101 S.E.2d 16, 21-22 (1957) (recognizing that the legal right of a parent to custody may yield to the interests of 551 (<HOLDING>); cf. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs.,

A: holding unwed father entitled to hearing on his fitness as a parent before children could be taken from him after death of their mother
B: holding due process was violated by the automatic rejection of an unwed fathers custodial relationship without granting the father opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent
C: recognizing that because a child born out of wedlock may be legitimated by father strictly speaking illegitimacy is not an immutable characteristic
D: holding that an illinois statute that conclusively presumed every father of a child born out of wedlock to be an unfit person to have custody of his children violated the due process clause and that due process required the father to be given an opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent
D.