Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
banc) (extending claim to adult children); Miller v. Subia, 514 P.2d 79, 80 (Colo.App.1973) (implication that action would be allowed upon display of adequate evidence); Wilkie v. Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064, 109 So. 225, 227 (1926) (but the law in Florida at present is unclear; in Yordon v. Savage, 279 So.2d 844, 846 (Fla.1973), the Court held that Wilkie permitted either parent to recover for the loss of the child's companionship, society and services. But other cases have limited Wilkie to authorizing only damages for lost services. See Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So.2d 503, 506 (FIa.1956); City Stores Co. v. Langer, 308 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla.App.1975); Dymek v. Nyquist, 128 Ill.App.3d 859, 83 Ill.Dec. 52, 59, 469 N.E.2d 659, 666 (1984) ; Ferguson v. Burkett, 454 So.2d 413, 416 (La.App.1984) ; First Trust Co. of North Dakota v. Scheels
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing this presumption
B. recognizing this rule
C. holding that statute of limitations for antitrust claim begins to run at time of accrual notwithstanding plaintiffs ignorance of facts giving rise to claim
D. recognizing a 1982 amendment giving rise to this claim
E. recognizing the conduct giving rise to punitive damages must be a proximate cause of the harm inflicted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.