With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Casey's own misstatements in her self-reporting. 22 . AS 47.10.088(a)(3). 23 . AS 47.10.086(a). 24 . Id. 25 . Id. 26 . AS 47.10.0860). 27 . Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 188 P.3d 668, 678 (Alaska 2008) 28 . Sean B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 251 P.3d 330, 338 (Alaska 2011) (citing Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697, 706 (Alaska 2005)). 29 . Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 432 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Sean B., 251 P.3d at 338) (internal quotation marks omitted). 30 . Erica A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 66 P.3d 1, 7 (Alaska 2003). 31 . See Roland L. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 206 P.3d 453, 456 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>); Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc.

A: holding that the types of remedial and rehabilitative services to be required under icwa depend on the facts of the case
B: holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents
C: holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative
D: holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing
C.