With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on father’s abandonment and felony convictions resulting in a prison term). Appellants cannot reasonably be expected to provide such services to someone who has expressed, in both actions and words, an unwillingness to form a parent-child relationship. See In re Welfare D.K., No. A10-550, 2010 WL 4181454, at *2 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 26, 2010) (affirming family court’s ruling that active efforts were made in part because father had not visited child in over a year despite living near the child, missed a scheduled visit without explanation, and father’s failure to visit was attributable to his subjective feelings that visiting was inconvenient rather than to county’s failure to provide assistance); In re Children of J. L. W., No. A05-20, 2005 WL 1804833, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 2, 2005) (<HOLDING>). During [Mother’s] pregnancy and after the

A: holding social workers efforts would have been futile in part because father never had a relationship with children initially denied paternity as to both and had previously shown no interest in being a parent
B: recognizing dual paternity where biological father has actual relationship with child or has been prevented from forming relationship by mother and acts to establish paternity within a reasonable time of childs birth he may use compulsory blood test in avowal action
C: holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity
D: holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child
A.