In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: needlessly leave out of our decisions an important source of information about the child, and in the end, it is the dependent child who suffers. After all, the children count here, not the agency. I believe that we gain nothing, and lose precious information by refusing foster parents standing. Standing to sue simply ensures that a particular party has a sufficient stake in a controversy before the court to obtain a judicial resolution. It should not be a doctrine to close the court house doors on parties who have a real interest in the matter at hand. I believe that the Juvenile Act confers "standing," subject to traditional jurisprudential limits, for the agency, the grandparent, and the foster parents to file these petitions. See also Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa.Super.1998)(<HOLDING>); McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 654 F.Supp. 1567
Holding statements: (A) holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child (B) holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter (C) holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal (D) holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody (E) holding that domestic partner who assumed a parental status over her partners child and performed parental duties with the partners permission stood in loco parentis to the child and had standing to seek partial custody and visitation

A: holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter
****
Q: 1024-25 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996) (J. Mark) (discussing the split of authority and explaining that Congress codified the result of In re Bobroff, 766 F.2d 797 (3d Cir.1985) which encouraged the use of debt repayment plans by ensuring that property acquired post-petition would not be subject to creditors' claims if Chapter 13 proved unsuccessful). Courts which held that property acquired post-petition must be property of the Chapter 7 estate after conversion did so because they believed such policy was "necessary to discourage strategic, opportunistic behavior that hurts creditors without advancing any legitimate interests of the debtors." In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136, 137 (7th Cir.1991). Lybrook, In re Colder, 973 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.1992), and In re Lindberg, 735 F.2d 1087 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), base their results on policy concerns that
Holding statements: (A) holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes (B) holding for 1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises (C) holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur (D) holding that date of conversion determines what exemptions apply (E) holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case

A: holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes
****
Q: by the state. Appellant moves to quash the circuit court's orders stating that he has complied with all pleading requirements to obtain a transcript. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) allows for this appeal from the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence. Appellant states that the fact that he entered a plea does not preclude him from pursuing his direct appeal with a record on appeal. See State v. Trowell, 739 So.2d 77 (Fla.1999); Ford v. State, 575 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The state takes no position on appellant's motion. In a direct criminal appeal, an indigent is entitled to have all proceedings transcribed at public expense that are necessary to support the appellant's claims. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (<HOLDING>). A trial court cannot withhold transcripts
Holding statements: (A) holding that the state law violated equal protection principles (B) holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause (C) holding that state and federal equal protection guarantees provide similar protections (D) holding on equal protection grounds that meaningful first appeal requires appointment of counsel for indigent defendants (E) holding that as a matter of equal protection the state must provide indigent defendants with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal when those tools are available for a price to other defendants

A:
holding that the state law violated equal protection principles
****