Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
them a constitutional duty of care. See Doe v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 649 F.2d 134, 141-42 (2d Cir.1981); Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 808 (3d Cir.2000) (en banc); Meador v. Cabinet for Human Res., 902 F.2d 474, 475-76 (6th Cir.1990); Norfleet v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289, 293 (8th Cir.1993); Yvonne L. v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883, 890-93 (10th Cir.1992); Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 796 (11th Cir.1987) (en bane); see also Hernandez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 880 (5th Cir.2004) (assuming such a duty); K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851-52 (7th Cir.1990) (only reaching duty to place, not duty to monitor). But see Milburn v. Anne Arundel County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 871 F.2d 474, 476 (4th Cir.1989) . Like such children, Tron not only looked to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that natural parents could not lose parental rights to foster parents where the foster agreement contemplates a surrender of custody for only a temporary period of time
B. holding that a state had no affirmative duty to a child placed voluntarily by his parents into foster care since he was in the custody of his foster parents who were not state actors rather than in the states custody
C. recognizing emotional bond between foster parents and child although ultimately determining foster parents did not have rights of parents in dependency action under chapter 2644 rcw
D. recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child
E. holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.