With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contends that if we uphold the award of guardianship as a permanent plan, “then respondent’s compliance with OCDSS and court demands becomes irrelevant to whether or not reunification efforts would be futile.” Respondent-father counters that OCDSS’s argument is circular; we believe it is more properly characterized as backwards, probably because OCDSS has changed its position in this appeal from its position in the trial court. On appeal, OCDSS now supports the trial court’s decision to cease reunification efforts. At the hearing, OCDSS recommended that reunification efforts continue. In some instances, parties may be judicially estopped from taking inconsistent positions at different points in the same litigation. See In re Maynard, 116 N.C. App. 616, 621, 448 S.E.2d 871, 874 (1994) (<HOLDING>), disc. rev. denied, 339 N.C. 613, 454 S.E.2d

A: holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children
B: holding that even though the declarant was not in danger she was experiencing an ongoing emergency because she did not know where her children were and she feared for their safety
C: holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children
D: holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children
C.