Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): this Court overruled the portion of Jeune that denied a wife’s right to recover for loss of her husband’s consortium. Our court of appeals recognized a cause of action for parents’ loss of an injured minor child’s consortium. Reben v. Ely, 146 Ariz. 309, 705 P.2d 1360 (Ct.App.1985). In 1986, we extended Reben to allow parents to recover for loss of an adult child’s consortium. Frank v. Superior Court, 150 Ariz. 228, 722 P.2d 955 (1986). Today, we take a final step in overruling Jeune and recognize a child’s right to recover for loss of parental consortium. See Comment, Frank v. Superior Court: Purging the Law of Outdated Theories for Loss of Consortium Recovery, 29 Ariz. L. Rev. 541, 547-48 (1987) (discussing Frank and noting that “the next logical step in this pro L.Ed.2d 56 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In Arizona, the legislature enacted a number 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause (B) recognizing equal protection right of illegitimate children to maintain civil action for nonsupport against parent (C) recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision (D) holding a parent is excused from maintaining contact with his or her children when the failure to maintain contact is caused by the involuntary confinement of the parent and the parent is precluded from contacting the children during such confinement (E) holding both legitimate and illegitimate children to be proper claimants under georgia wrongful death statute
Output (English): holding a parent is excused from maintaining contact with his or her children when the failure to maintain contact is caused by the involuntary confinement of the parent and the parent is precluded from contacting the children during such confinement