With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it is the only section of the statute that allows for a finding of partial emancipation. Here, the only evidence presented regarding J.B.R.'s school status was that J.B.R., who was home schooled, was a senior in high school but had not yet completed all his junior level requirements. Father, who had the burden of proving that J.B.R. was emancipated, presented no evidence that J.B.R. had not attended school for the prior four months and no evidence that J.B.R. was not enrolled in school. Although J.B.R. was working full-time, the evidence presented showed that he was still enrolled in school. Thus, the trial court's finding that J.B.R. was partially emancipated is not supported by the evidence and is clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Taylor v. Chaffin, 558 N.E.2d 879, 883 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Accord-fﬁgly, we . must reverse the trial

A: holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours
B: holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child
C: holding that evidence that child was enrolled in and attending school precluded finding of emancipation under section of emancipation statute requiring a showing of the child being eighteen years old not enrolled in school and capable of supporting himself
D: holding that court may order reimbursement of private school expenses incurred by parents of handicapped child in successful challenge to iep brought under eha predecessor to idea stating that it is beyond cavil that appropriate relief would include a prospective injunction directing the school official to develop and implement at public expense an iep placing the child in a private school and affirming reimbursement award against petitioner local school district
C.