With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". petition for writ of mandamus, in part, and direct the trial court to modify its September 10, 2008 order consistent with this opinion, and direct that Bradshaw is not responsible for amicus attorney fees for work performed in connection with the habeas corpus matter. We deny Bradshaw’s petition, in part, with regard to denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his request for attorney’s fees. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion. 1 . C.S.B. will turn 17 in January 2009. 2 . See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.375 (Vernon 2002) (providing relator is not amenable to civil process while in Texas for sole purpose of compelling return of child through habeas corpus proceeding); Marshall v. Wilson, 616 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1981) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Section 157.374 of the Texas Family Code

A: holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
B: holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
C: holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence 
D: holding a court cannot issue and make returnable to it a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner is outside the courts authority
A.