With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but also of the tribes themselves.”). None of the Tribe’s rights established by ICWA and enumerated in Holyfield are implicated, much less disregarded, here. Accordingly, I cannot understand the majority's continued emphasis on the primacy of tribal sovereignty as determinative of the outcome of this action. 49 . Beginning in February 2011, Father has intermittently sent checks to Appellants’ attorney for the benefit of Baby Girl. According to the record, Father remitted seven checks totaling $1,500. The most recent payment was dated July 7, 2011. 50 . This is particularly so in light of the evidence at trial indicating Father refused to provide Mother with pre-birth financial assistance. 51 . Lehr was preceded by Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (<HOLDING>), and Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98

A: holding unconstitutional a statute providing for children to be declared dependent and removed from their unwed fathers custody based on the presumption that unwed fathers are unfit parents
B: holding unwed father entitled to hearing on his fitness as a parent before children could be taken from him after death of their mother
C: holding due process was violated by the automatic rejection of an unwed fathers custodial relationship without granting the father opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent
D: holding that if an unwed father promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities  emotional financial and otherwise  his federal constitutional right to due process prohibits the termination of his parental relationship absent a showing of his unfitness as a parent
C.