With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that, in holding that the child was “dependent” and in need of foster care, the state court had necessarily determined that the defendant’s state court suit was not based on an improper motive. We rejected the agency’s Rooker-Feld-man argument, reasoning that under Pennsylvania law “[njeither an adjudication of dependency nor a determination of the appropriate disposition of a dependent child is based on the intentions or states of mind of the party seeking the dependency determination.” Id. Accordingly, a determination that the agency sought to terminate the grandmother’s custody of the child with an improper motive would not necessarily imply that the state court had erred in determining that the child was dependent under Pennsylvania law. See also Parkview, 225 F.3d at 326 (<HOLDING>); Gulla, 146 F.3d at 172 (holding that a state

A: holding that where the board had already made the necessary factual evaluation underlying the legal standard to be applied it then becomes the courts responsibility to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the boards findings were supported by substantial evidence
B: holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process
C: holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law
D: holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations
D.