Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was sought, all parties had moved to Missouri. Missouri is responsible for the welfare of the Thompson children, and Missouri continues a father’s support obligation until his child reaches the age of twenty-one. Mr. Thompson, the husband, became subject to Missouri law upon establishing a domicile in this state. Missouri need not accede to the judgment of a sister state concerning a continuing matter that has become a purely internal affair of Missouri. In weighing the interests of Kansas under the policy reasons for full faith and credit and the interests of Missouri in the maintenance and support of minor children domiciled in Missouri, the balance must be struck on the side of Missouri. Id. at 87, 88 (citations omitted). Cf. Davis v. Sullivan, 762 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) . In In re the Marriage of McCabe, 819 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the full faith and credit clause precluded modification of a foreign states decree with regard to the age of majority where the obligor remained a resident of the rendering state
B. holding that a statute that lowered the age of majority to 18 did not have retroactive effect on the plaintiffs lawsuit when the applicable statute of limitations was shortened because it was tied to the age of majority
C. holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause
D. recognizing the majority rule
E. holding that another states reservation of personal jurisdiction over a florida resident for the purpose of modifying its decree may last as long as the effectiveness of the decree and that no dueprocess violation occurs by the entry of a default modification against the florida resident if the florida resident was afforded proper notice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.