Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
notice in § 1913. In contrast, 25 U.S.C. § 1912, applicable to involuntary termination of parental rights, expressly requires notice to “the parent of Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe.” The plain reading of section 1913 requires no notice to the tribe for a voluntary relinquishment of custody. A reading with other statutory sections does not reveal inconsistencies. No ambiguity exists. The ICWA assigns exclusive jurisdiction over an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation to the tribe. It provides concurrent jurisdiction to both the tribe and state over any Indian child who does not meet the exclusive jurisdiction requirements. See 25 U.S.C. § 1911. For all involuntary State proceedings, notice is required to the parent or Indian custodian and 1996) . Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1913, no tribal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child
B. recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time
C. recognizing the draft amendments would for the first time entitle tribes to receive notice when a voluntary child custody proceedings is underway
D. recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection
E. recognizing that a district court has the authority to award attorney fees in postdivorce proceedings involving child custody
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.