With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nor were the probation officers obligated to fulfill the terms of Doe’s probation. Doe was responsible to work her case plan and comply with the terms of her probation. She failed to do so. While the evidence is conflicting, there is substantial and competent evidence in the record supporting the magistrate court’s finding that Doe failed to follow her case plan. See Doe, 147 Idaho at 356, 209 P.3d at 653 (concluding that while the case was not as “clear-cut” as most parental termination cases, there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support terminating parental rights where the parents had failed to comply with the magistrate’s orders to complete their case plan); see also State, Department of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 145 Idaho 662, 665, 182 P.3d 1196, 1199 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Doe, 144 Idaho at 314, 160 P.3d at 753

A: holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence
B: recognizing that while evidence was conflicting there was substantial and competent evidence to support magistrates findings that doe failed to comply with the case plan where she had seventeen months to do so and only began some compliance in the last six months by following the terms of her probation
C: holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial
D: holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
B.