Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a party seeking modification of a foreign child-support order must register that order in the manner prescribed by the UIFSA. The father argues that § 30-3A-613, Ala.Code 1975, applied to the 2005 action and relieved him of the duty of registering the foreign support judgment. However, § 30-3A-613(a) provides: “If all of the parties who are individuals reside in this state and the child does not reside in the issuing state, a court of this state has jurisdiction to enforce and to modify the issuing state’s child-support order in a proceeding to register that order” (Emphasis added.) We acknowledge that the mother and the father resided in Alabama in 2005 and that the children had left Missouri so that § S0-SA-613(a) applies, see Mathews v. Mathews, 368 Ark. 252, 244 S.W.3d 660 (2006) ; however, under that statute, the trial court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in modification proceeding trial court should have adjusted child support based on substantial timesharing even though the father had earlier agreed to pay child support without such an adjustment trial court found that circumstances had changed based on fathers reduction in income
B. holding that arkansass version of the uifsa applied to registration and modification of foreign childsupport order even though father mother and child resided in state
C. holding that court could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old
D. holding that the trial courts attempt at modification of a utah child support order which was registered in south dakota was nullified due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to uifsa
E. holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.