Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
¶ 10 The testimony of Dr. Stahl in this case was much less compelling than the evidence excluded in Hays. Nonetheless, Dr. Stahl’s testimony had some relevance. We cannot ascertain the weight the court placed on Dr. Stahl’s testimony due to the court’s limited findings. Therefore, we cannot gauge the degree, if any, to which Father was disadvantaged by this testimony. We note, however, that Father chose not to seek a continuance to depose Dr. Stahl. Moreover, the timing of the disclosure was not entirely Mother’s fault, but was due, in part, to the late date on which the parties received the custody evaluation. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the family court abused its discretion in allowing Dr. Stahl to testify. II. Adequacy of Findings of Fac 0 P.3d 775, 780 (App. 2003) . ¶ 13 As in the aforementioned eases, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings
B. holding that the lower courts findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under ars  25403
C. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence
D. holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings
E. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.