With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 261.101(a). Upon investigation by the CAC, the Austin County Sheriffs Department, and CPS, the evidence that Byles had assaulted L.S. was found by CPS to be “significant” enough to support a finding of “unable to determine,” together with a conclusion that the risk was “significant” but “controlled” because Byles had been kept away from L.S. since the date of the o d 398, 405-07 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (affirming dismissal for failure to state cause of action after law firm establish defense of qualified immunity). Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case. In my opinion, this case presents fundamental jurisdictional error. See McCauley v. Consol. Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475, 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Tex.1957) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The record clearly shows that Jesus was held

A: holding error to be fundamental when record shows jurisdictional defect
B: holding right to be fundamental
C: holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect
D: holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process
A.