With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". E. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 77 P.3d 715, 720 (Alaska 2003); see also Burke v. State., Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 162 P.3d 1239, 1245 (Alaska 2007) (stating that courts consider "the entire history of the services that OCS has provided a parent"). 47 . Burke, 162 P.3d at 1245. 48 . Services offered by the Department of Corrections are considered efforts of OCS for purposes of the reasonable efforts analysis. See T.F. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 26 P.3d 1089, 1096 (Alaska 2001). 49 . A.A. v. State, Dep't of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999) (internal quotations and footnotes omitted). 50 . Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 188 P.3d 668, 679-81 (Alaska 2008) (<HOLDING>). 51 . AS 47.10.088(c). 52 . CINA Rule

A: holding that claims for breach of the debtors agreement to use its best efforts to register its securities arise from the purchase of those securities for purposes of  510b
B: recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights
C: holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context
D: holding that although ocss efforts were limited during the eight to ninemonth period preceding the termination proceedings this did not render its efforts unreasonable when considered in the context of the full history of its involvement with the parent
D.