Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
734 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex.1987) (“Justice demands a speedy resolution of child custody and child support issues.”). Section 153.0071 serves the first goal of peaceful resolution by providing procedures for alternate dispute resolution. However, because section 153.0071 is silent on the options available to a court when an arbitrator’s award is vacated, the second goal of a speedy resolution is not served, as is clear in this case. Nevertheless, until the Legislature amends the Family Code provisions on arbitration, we are bound by section 153.0071’s silence, this court’s decision in Koch, and the provisions of the TAA. Accordingly, the trial court did not have discretion to rule on a claim or controversy that the parties agreed to submit to binding arbitration. See Koch, 27 S.W.3d at 97 . Because the trial court was limited to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the trial court had referred the parties to arbitration but it was ambiguous as to whether the court had also dismissed the underlying case dismissal and referral to arbitration should really be construed as an order to stay litigation pending arbitration which under koczak and umana was not a final appealable order
B. holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties
C. holding that because taa is silent on whether section 171089b includes right to order parties to trial when the arbitration is vacated explicit language of statute should be followed
D. holding that an order granting a motion or application to compel arbitration is nonappealable because it is not listed in the uaa arbitration provision and because it is not a final order
E. holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.