With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1125; Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir.1997) (“An indictment or serious allegations of abuse which are investigated and corroborated usually gives rise to a reasonable inference of imminent danger.”); Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, 1093 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)); see also Campbell, 141 F.3d at 927; Franz, 997 F.2d 784; Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 80 (2d Cir.1991) (collecting cases). Moreover, the police cannot seize children suspected of being abused or neglected unless reasonable avenues of investigation are first pursued, particularly where it is not clear that a crime has been—or will be—committed. See Sevigny v. Dicksey, 846 F.2d 953, 957 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 128 (7th

A: holding that child abuse investigator has duty to investigate information that would have clarified matters prior to separating children from their parents
B: holding there was not probable cause to arrest parents for child abuse even though the facts weakly supported an inference that the children were being neglected because the officer failed to question the parents medical personnel or other caretakers which would have provided information that the children were not being neglected
C: holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit
D: recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children
A.