With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mills denied any intent to use his children to similar effect, the district court was free to reject this disclaimer, particularly in light of tape recorded conversations in which Mills insisted that his mother deliver the drugs on the August 4 visit—when she would be accompanied by the children—rather than on the August 3 visit—when she would come to the prison without them. In sum, the district court could fairly have inferred that Mills’s children were not simply coincidentally present at the time their father and grandmother attempted to smuggle drugs into the prison. Rather, the adults had deliberately chosen to commit their crime on the single day when the children’s presence would provide a further distraction. Compare United States v. Jimenez, 300 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Castro-Hernandez, 258

A: holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement
B: holding that a child who routinely accompanied his mother on family trips to mexico was not used by her in smuggling drugs when it would have been highly unusual for her to have left him with some other person
C: holding that mother did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it in her first responsive pleading ie her answer to dhrs  petition to terminate her parental rights because the mother sought leave to amend her answer to include the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction  dhr did not object to that motion and  the juvenile court allowed the mother to amend her answer
D: holding mothers due process rights were not violated when her appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw and hearing was held without mother because the record showed mother did not inform counsel of her whereabouts after moving thereby frustrating counsels efforts to contact her and because mother was properly served with notice of the termination hearing
B.