With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reasoned explanation for its decision. Complaint at ¶ 14. The Mullinses allege that CSD’s objection had nothing to do with their fitness as adoptive parents. They claim that CSD objected because it erroneously thought that it had to obtain the blessing of Washington authorities before it could send the chil dren to live with the Mullinses in Seattle. See Complaint at ¶ 16. Whatever the reason for the objection, once CSD withheld its consent to the adoption, that was the end of the road for the Mullinses. The juvenile court had no choice but to dismiss their adoption petition for want of jurisdiction. See Oreg.Rev.Stat. § 109.316 (providing that CSD must consent to adoption of children in its custody); see also In re Adoption of Greybull, 29 Or.App. 889, 565 P.2d 773, 774-75 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The juvenile court dutifully dismissed the

A: holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded
B: holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional
C: holding that a claim of exemption is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded
D: holding that csds consent is jurisdictional fact that must be pleaded in adoption petition
D.