With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiffs to demonstrate that the claimed State action has directly injured the parent-child relationship itself. Id., citing Shaw v. Stroud, supra at 804, citing, in turn, Ortiz v. Burgos, supra 7-9. As such, the Court, in Baynard, went on to analyze the propriety of the plaintiffs’ claim, in that case, as follows: [I]n the present case, the question is whether the harm that Plaintiffs allege — deprivation of their parental rights — amounts to a direct injury, which is cognizable, or an incidental injury, which is not cognizable. The Fourth Circuit has not defined what constitutes direct injury. However, the First Circuit has provided some guidance. Direct injury is that which is directly aimed at the parent-child relationship. See, Pittsley v. Warish, 927 F.2d 3, 8 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The aggrieved person under § 1983 is the

A: holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement
B: holding a mother on appeal must successfully challenge a trial courts finding that there was no substantial and continuing change of circumstances of the children or mother before she can succeed on her claim that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to modify custody
C: holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception
D: holding that a mother and her two children failed to establish a  1983 claim where there was no evidence that threats made to the mother were directly aimed at the relationship between parent and child
D.