With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (In re Cervantes), 219 F.3d 955 (9th Cir.2000). The court in Cervantes faced a nearly identical issue to the one this Court now addresses: “May an absent parent who owes money to the County for child support payments made by the County prior to the entry of a child support order have that debt discharged in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding?” Id. at 957. The only difference in this case from Cervantes is that Cervantes was a Chapter 13 debtor, such that § 523(a)(18) was inapplicable, whereas in the instant case, the debtor is seeking a Chapter 7 discharge. Without evaluating the potential impact of § 523(a)(5) to the reimbursement debt, the Cervantes court went outside the Bankruptcy Code to hold the debt nondis-chargeable under § 656(b) of the Social Security Act. See id. at 962 (<HOLDING>). The court’s failure in Cervantes to explain

A: holding that  656b serves as an independent basis to make all such debts nondischargeable under title 11
B: recognizing that bankruptcy court preconfirmation bears an independent duty to assure compliance with title 11 even if no objection is lodged
C: recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11
D: holding that all core proceedings necessarily arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case
A.