With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1999) (quoting Moore v. Alsmiller, 289 Ky. 682, 160 S.W.2d 10, 12 (1942)). 7 . It is not clear from their brief whether Mark and Laurie contest the facial constitutionality of the statute or whether they merely challenge the statute’s constitutional validity as applied to them. In any event, we can only address the "as-applied” constitutional challenge because the Attorney General was not given notice of the facial challenge pursuant to KRS 418.075 and Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 24.03. See Maney v. Mary Chiles Hospital, Ky., 785 S.W.2d 480 (1990). 8 .Troxel, supra, 530 U.S. at 65, 147 L.Ed.2d at 56 (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)). 9 . Id. 10 . See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993)(<HOLDING>). 11 . See e.g., Davis v. Collins-worth, Ky.,

A: holding that a parent who voluntarily leaves the world of gainful employment for however good a reason does not foreclose inquiry into the need for child support and the responsibility of that parent to supply it thus permitting a court to impute income to an obligor
B: holding that a parent has a right of custody by reason of that parents ne exeat right the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country
C: holding that so long as the parent adequately cares for his or her child there will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family
D: holding that a de facto parents rights do not infringe on the fundamental liberty interests of the other legal parent in a family unit because de facto status can be achieved only through the active encouragement of the biological or adoptive parent by affirmatively establishing a family unit with the de facto parent and child or children that accompany the family
C.