Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Chamberlin, 206 Neb. 808, 295 N.W.2d 391 (1980). While we have held that one may in good faith make an occupational change even though that change may reduce one’s ability to meet financial obligations, we have never determined whether the termination of one’s employment due to one’s own bad acts or fault constitutes good cause justifying modification or termination of alimony payments. See Cooper, supra. Other jurisdictions have addressed this issue. For instance, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated, “Although unemployment or diminution of earnings is a common ground for modification, a petition for modific (employing good faith test to determine whether decrease in income should justify decrease in alimony); Antonelli v. Antonelli, 242 Va. 152, 409 S.E.2d 117 (1991) ; Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718 (Minn.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that premium reduction was legal where the insured had given consideration for reduction
B. holding that husbands knowledge of his obligation of support and his subsequent election to enter employment that would substantially reduce his income and make it impossible to meet his obligations would not justify reduction in support
C. holding that a sale must be both fair and reasonable in price and made in good faith
D. holding that reduction in income resulting from voluntary employment decision does not require corresponding reduction in payor spouses support obligations even if decision was reasonable and made in good faith
E. holding that fathers criminal activity resulting in incarceration did not constitute material change in circumstances justifying reduction in or termination of his child support obligations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.