With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . In Tandra S., 336 Md. at 323, 648 A.2d at 448-49, the majority noted a number of out-of-state cases in which reopening paternity was al lowed after a negative paternity test. The Court distinguished the cases based on the broader revisory powers in those states. Chapter 248 obviously changed the context of that argument. As a result, those cases, disfavored by this Court in Tandra S., are now, by reason of the 1995 statute, in accordance with our views. See, e.g., Spears v. Spears, 784 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Ky.Ct.App.1990) ("[I]t is our belief that to apply res judicata to preclude [the father] from challenging paternity, when blood testing has shown that he is not the father, would 'work an injustice.’ "); Department of Soc. Servs. v. Franzel, 204 Mich.App. 385, 391, 516 N.W.2d 495, 497 (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 447 Mich. 995, 525 N.W.2d 456

A: holding that a support order was no longer equitable after a blood test excluded the putative father
B: holding that after marrama  the absolute right position is no longer viable
C: holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover
D: holding that the circuits prior test which permitted flexible interplay among the elements may no longer be applied after winter
A.