With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Other circuits have reached different conclusions on whether a social worker who initiates a child custody proceedings is fulfilling a prosecutorial or investigative function. Compare Millspaugh, 937 F.2d at 1176 and Vosburg v. Department of Social Servs., 884 F.2d 133 (4th Cir.1989) (granting absolute immunity to social workers in connection with their filing of a child removal petition) and Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Social Services, 812 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.) (social worker function in determining when to bring dependency proceedings is similar to responsibility of a criminal prosecutor), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 829, 108 S.Ct. 98, 98 L.Ed.2d 59 (1987) and Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 (6th Cir.1984) with Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 689 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 976, 111 S.Ct. 1622,

A: holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity
B: holding that filing of a verified complaint was similar to a policeman filing an arrest warrant and did not initiate judicial process
C: holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity
D: holding that a prosecutors filing of an arrest warrant and charging documents are protected by absolute immunity
B.