With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — and thus granted the petition and ordered that the appeal be reset for oral argument. Kaiser, 496 F.2d 531 (5th Cir.1974) (per curiam). The case, however, settled before the second oral argument was to be held, and thus the Fifth Circuit never addressed whether the parents in that case came within the reach of Gaudet. See Kaiser, No. 73-2653, Clerk’s Order (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 1975). 32 .See Tidewater Marine Towing, Inc. v. Curran-Houston, Inc., 785 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir.1986) (parents brought general maritime negligence action on behalf of the alleged "common-law wife" of the decedent who had lived and was killed in Louisiana; affirming dismissal of the case, since Louisiana law did not recognize the validity of “common-law” marriages); Ivy, 585 F.2d 732, adhered to en banc, 606 F.2d 524 (<HOLDING>); S/S Helena, 529 F.2d 744 (mentioning in one

A: holding court could not require parents to divulge incriminating information but court could consider parents failure to undergo meaningful therapy in deciding whether parents could regain their children
B: holding that once juvenile court found children dependent it had exclusive jurisdiction to determine their custody
C: holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed
D: holding that dependent parents could not recover lossofsociety under the jones act where the jury had found no unseaworthiness
D.