With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this Court overruled the portion of Jeune that denied a wife’s right to recover for loss of her husband’s consortium. Our court of appeals recognized a cause of action for parents’ loss of an injured minor child’s consortium. Reben v. Ely, 146 Ariz. 309, 705 P.2d 1360 (Ct.App.1985). In 1986, we extended Reben to allow parents to recover for loss of an adult child’s consortium. Frank v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 228, 722 P.2d 955 (1986). Today, we take a final step in overruling Jeune and recognize a child’s right to recover for loss of parental consortium. See Comment, Frank v. Superior Court: Purging the Law of Outdated Theories for Loss of Consortium Recovery, 29 Ariz. L. Rev. 541, 547-48 (1987) (discussing Frank and noting that “the next logical step in this pro L.Ed.2d 56 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In Arizona, the legislature enacted a number

A: holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
B: recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision
C: recognizing equal protection right of illegitimate children to maintain civil action for nonsupport against parent
D: holding a parent is excused from maintaining contact with his or her children when the failure to maintain contact is caused by the involuntary confinement of the parent and the parent is precluded from contacting the children during such confinement
C.