With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". daughter’s affections.” Id. at 938. Relief has also been granted to the noncustodial parent on the theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Raftery v. Scott, 756 F.2d 335 (4th Cir.1985), the court affirmed a money judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of a noncustodial father. The mother left the State of New York with her two-year-old son in May 1977, one month before a New York divorce decree awarded her custody. It was not until December 1981 that the father learned that the mother had remarried and taken up residence in Virginia with the child. In February 1982 the father sued in a Virginia state court to enforce the visitation provisions of the New York decree. In that proceeding a court-ordered mental health evaluation of the child concluded that 8 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Because Hixon does not argue that he is the

A: holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort
B: holding that an allegation that plaintiffs sister and brotherinlaw enticed plaintiffs son to stay away from his father was sufficient to state a potential cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress
C: holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
D: recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress
B.