With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Breazeale, 144 Wn.2d 829, 842, 31 P.3d 1155 (2001))). 6 In re Interest of M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425,439, 3 P.3d 780 (2000), review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1027 (2001). 7 M.B., 101 Wn. App. at 440. 8 M.B., 101 Wn. App. at 440 (citing In re Pers. Restraint of King, 110 Wn.2d 793, 802-04, 756 P.2d 1303 (1988)). 9 M.B., 101 Wn. App. at 439. 10 Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831,114 S. Ct. 2552,129 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1994) (quoting Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 202, 88 S. Ct. 1477, 20 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1968)). 11 King, 110 Wn.2d at 802. 12 See Dawson v. Dawson, 71 Wn.2d 66, 67, 426 P.2d 614 (1967). 13 71 Wn.2d 66, 426 P.2d 614 (1967). 14 Dawson, 71 Wn.2d at 68. 15 Dawson, 71 Wn.2d at 67. 16 See, e.g., Ditmar v. Ditmar, 48 Wn.2d 373, 374, 293 P.2d 759 (1956) (<HOLDING>). 17 63 Wash. 597, 116 P. 2 (1911). 18 Poland,

A: recognizing that the courts jurisdiction to enforce supportmoney judgments is predicated upon the continued dependency of the children in question
B: recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin
C: recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments
D: holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions
A.