Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 39.407(14); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.250(b). The “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements are also included in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a), which provides for mental examinations in civil actions. In a case involving a mental examination of a father in a dissolution modification action, this court explained the “in controversy” requirement under rule 1.360(a). See Williams v. Williams, 550 So.2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). For a parent’s mental health to be “in controversy,” “the condition must directly involve a material element of the cause of action.” Id. at 167. But see In re T.M.W., 553 So.2d 260, 262-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (assuming the. parent’s mental condition was in controversy because custody was at issue); In re S.N., 529 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) . In Gasparino v. Murphy, 352 So.2d 933 (Fla.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding
B. holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding
C. holding simply that padilla was not made retroactive to cases on collateral review without further analysis
D. holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding
E. holding that the mothers mental condition was implicated in a dependency proceeding without further analysis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.