With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". McCullum, that it would be a “strange rule,” indeed, to impose upon a defendant the burden of proving unfitness to proceed with a post-conviction petition where the very disability the defendant seeks to prove may very well render the defendant incapable of sustaining the burden of proof. Accordingly, we hold that, once a bona fide doubt of a defendant’s fitness to proceed with a post-conviction petition is raised, the burden is upon the State to prove that the defendant is fit. Here, the circuit court found no bona fide doubt of defendant’s fitness, but determined that, given the gravity of the case, it would proceed to an evidentiary hearing. In the absence of a bona fide doubt, further proceedings were neither necessary nor proper. See People v. Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d 501, 513 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In any event, we find that a bona fide doubt

A: holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing
B: holding that the circuit courts finding of some doubt as to defendants fitness for trial is not a proper ground for granting postconviction relief and ordering a fitness hearing
C: holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief
D: holding that parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on parental fitness before children are removed from their custody
B.