With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but also extend it to proceedings involving the termination of parental rights. Even if the Minnesota courts were to adopt the doctrine of abatement, it is doubtful that the doctrine would be extended to cases involving termination of parental rights. Abatement rests primarily on the dual rationales that (1) the party in interest is no longer living and (2) his rights to an appeal cannot be vindicated. Carlin, 249 P.3d at 762; Wkitehouse v. State, 266 Ind. 527, 364 N.E.2d 1015, 1016 (1977). Here, although the child’s best interests were the central focus of the termination proceedings, appellant remains a real party in interest. The termination order concerns her constitutional rights. See generally Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Appellant concedes that she faces collateral

A: recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children
B: 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
C: recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children
D: holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right
A.