With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". underlying prior orders- in this action, and that the court was required to accept those prior orders and the findings therein. [¶ 24] A party is foreclosed from relitigating factual issues that have already been decided “if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and ... the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive in an earlier proceeding to present the same factual issue or issues it wishes to litigate again in a subsequent proceeding.” Id. (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). We have held that “[p]rinciples of res judicata must be applied with caution in domestic relations cases” because of changing developments that affect a child’s best interests. Id. If 41; cf. Preston v. Tracy, 2008 ME 34, ¶¶ 12, 15, 942 A.2d 718 (<HOLDING>). [¶25] Here, at the time of the final hearing

A: holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
B: recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences
C: holding that a finding that a party willfully misused the protection from abuse process was not binding on the court in a subsequent divorce action because when determining parental rights and responsibilities a court  must make an independent examination of the totality of the circumstances after hearing fresh evidence
D: holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury
C.