Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the juvenile court. Although we find instructive the Supreme Court’s holding in Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962), cited by appellant, we conclude that holding does not require a different result. In Gallegos, the Court said that a 14-year-old boy, no matter how sophisticated, is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him when he is made accessible only to the police. [Such a person] is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and ... is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefit of his constitutional rights. 370 U.S. at 54, 82 S.Ct. at 1212; see also Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 601, 68 S.Ct. 302, 304, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948) . Gallegos is distinguishable from appellant’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding interrogation of fifteen year old without parent or attorney violated due process
B. holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice
C. holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law
D. holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process
E. holding due process was violated by the automatic rejection of an unwed fathers custodial relationship without granting the father opportunity to present evidence regarding his fitness as a parent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.