With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 109 N.J. at 463-68, 537 A.2d 1227, the Court authorized a similar disposition. However, in this case, unlike in Baby M., visitation rights cannot be predicated on the parental rights of the biological mother in light of our determination that J.H.’s parental rights must be terminated. Further, no other grounds justify continued visitation with the child by the biological mother. As noted, the agreement itself cannot, under the circumstances, constitute a basis for the award of such visitation to J.H. The agreement was intended only to enable J.H. to be a part of her child’s life. Nothing in the record and the trial court’s findings suggests that the child’s best interests might require a continuing relationship with his biological mother. Cf. J.C., supra, 129 N.J. at 26, 608 A.2d 1312 (<HOLDING>). The trial court determined, as already noted,

A: holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children
B: recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis
C: recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children
D: recognizing that publicagency adoptions may exist in which the welfare of children  reasonably requires continued contact with natural parents subsequent to guardianship being granted to dyfs
D.