With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". T.M. claims that he was unaware of the original proceedings on September 6, 1989, and the order entered September 12, in which the children were adjudicated to be juveniles within the provisions of § 43-247(3)(a). R.B. appeared at the adjudication hearing, waived her right to counsel, and admitted the allegations in the petition. This court notes that T.M. is the biological father of the four children, that a divorce proceeding was pending in Colorado on the date of the hearing in Nebraska and on the date the children were adjudicated, and that T.M. possessed all of the constitutionally protected rights of a parent at that time. Yet, pursuant to the record before this court, he was denied notice of the hearing. See In re Interest of L. V., 240 Neb. 404, 482 N.W.2d 250 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The juvenile code requires that notice of an

A: holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right
B: recognizing that noncustodial parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children
C: recognizing in dictum parents right to care custody management and companionship of their children
D: holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit
B.