Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Id. We agree with the reasoning in these cases. We thus hold that wills should be construed by the law as it existed when the testator died, thereby excluding adopted children as beneficiaries unless the will indicates an intent to include adopted children. In the instant case, the probate court determined that Jenkins did not intend to include his daughters’ adopted children as beneficiaries of his testamentary trust. In making its determination, the probate court considered the law as it existed in 1944, when Jenkins executed his will. At that time, Colorado law presumed that adopted children were not included as beneficiaries unless the testator expressly included the term “adopted children” in the will. See Brunton v. International Trust Co., 114 Colo. 298, 164 P.2d 472 (1945) . The law presumes that Jenkins knew the law in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child
B. holding that when a testator makes provision for a child or children of another person an adopted child of the other person is not included unless other language in the will makes it clear that the adopted child was intended to be included
C. holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute
D. holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child
E. holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.