Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
filed on June 7, 2007, we must resolve the ambiguity in favor of Anival. Vazquez, slip op. at 3 (citing Grey v. Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892 P.2d 595, 597 (Nev. 1995) (“The testimony illustrates that the date of receipt... by the clerk’s office is, at the very least ambiguous. Accordingly, we are compelled to resolve the ambiguity in Roxanne’s favor.”)). 4 See Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Haw. 1, 193 P.3d 839, 846-47 (2008); Roark v. Roark, 551 N.E.2d 865, 868-69 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (noting “potentially devastating” collateral consequences for parent of expired “child in need of services” order, including impacts on future presentence investigations, in-court impeachments, and child custody determinations); Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 700 N.E.2d 296, 298 (1998) ; Piper v. Layman, 125 Md. App. 745, 726 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding expired domestic violence restraining order not moot because of collateral legal consequences such as consideration in custody determination and nonlegal collateral consequences such as reputational harm
B. holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations
C. holding appeal from abuse prevention order not moot due to orders expiration because of collateral consequences including effect in future proceedings and stigma
D. holding that revocation of parole does not create collateral consequences sufficient to extend standing beyond expiration of sentence and rejecting as moot a challenge to an allegedly erroneous parole revocation
E. holding drivers license revocation was not moot because collateral consequences of revocation may be substantial including higher insurance rates and adverse employment consequences
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.