Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a duty to avoid negligent infliction of emotional distress, as the law recognizes and imposes a duty of care on many different types of relationships, not all of which necessarily implicate the emotional well-being of the parties. See Undertakings and Special Relationships, supra, at 49 & n. 1. (referring to relationships involving “(1) carrier-passenger, (2) innkeeper-guest, (3) invitor-invitee or possessor of land open to the public and one lawfully upon the premises; (4) employer-employee, (5) school-student, (6) landlord-tenant, and (7) custodian-ward”); Vassiliades, 492 A.2d at 591-92 (noting that fiduciaries have a duty to “scrupulously hon- or the trust and confidence reposed in them because” of fiduciary relationship); District of Columbia v. Royal, 465 A.2d 367, 369 (D.C.1983) ; Smith v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 298 A.2d 214,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the districts duty of care for the protection of school children in its schools
B. recognizing the schools custodial and tutelary responsibility for children in the fourth amendment context
C. holding that a school board policy prohibiting employees from sending their children to private schools interfered with employees constitutional right to control the education of their children
D. recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts
E. recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.