Its no secret that many children would be healthier and happier with adoptive parents than with the parents that nature dealt them. Thats especially true of children who remain in abusive homes because the law blindly favors biological parents. Its also true of children who suffer for years in foster homes because of parents who cant or wont care for them but refuse to give up custody rights.

　　Fourteen-year-old Kimberly Mays fits neither description, but her recent court victory could eventually help children who do. Kimberly has been the object of an angry custody battle between the man who raised her and her biological parents, with whom she has never lived. A Florida judge ruled that the teenager can remain with the only father shes ever known and that her biological parents have no legal claim on her.

　　The ruling, though it may yet be reversed, sets aside the principle that biology is the primary determinant of parentage. Thats an important development, one thats long overdue.

　　Shortly after birth in December 1978, Kimberly Mays and another infant were mistakenly switched and sent home with the wrong parents. Kimberlys biological parents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, received a child who died of a heart disease in 1988. Medical tests showed that the child wasnt the Twiggs own daughter, but Kimberly was, thus sparking a custody battle with Robert Mays. In 1989, the two families agreed that Mr Mays would maintain custody with the Twiggs getting visiting rights.Those rights were ended when Mr Mays decided that Kimberly was being harmed.

　　The decision to leave Kimberly with Mr Mays rendered her suit debated. But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing to sue on her own behalf. Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit.

　　Certainly, the biological link between parent and child is fundamental. But biological parents arent always preferable to adoptive ones, and biological parentage does not convey an absolute ownership that cancels all the rights of children.

　　1. What was the primary consideration in the Florida judges ruling?

　　A) The biological link.

　　B) The childs benefits.

　　C) The traditional practice.

　　D) The parents feelings.

　　2. We can learn from the Kimberly case that _________ .

　　A) children are more than just personal possessions of their parents

　　B) the biological link between parents and child should be emphasized

　　C) foster homes bring children more pain and suffering than care

　　D) biological parents shouldnt claim custody rights after their child is adopted

　　3. The Twiggs claimed custody rights to Kimberly because _______ .

　　A) they found her unhappy in Mr Mayscustody

　　B) they regarded her as their property

　　C) they were her biological parents

　　D) they felt guilty about their past mistake

　　4. Kimberly had been given to Mr Mays _________ .

　　A) by sheer accident B) out of charity

　　C) at his request D) for better care

　　5. The authors attitude towards the judges ruling could be

　　described as _________.

　　A) doubtful B) critical

　　C) cautious D) supportive

　　答案與解析：

　　1. B).根據第五段第二句 But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing to sue on her own behalf. 可知,法官確信Kimberly有權為自己的利益訴訟.對于Kimberly來說,她的利益就是生活在一個能使她更健康、更幸福的家庭.從本文開頭一句推斷,Kimberly的養(yǎng)父家能夠滿足她的要求,因此,法官判決她仍然生活在養(yǎng)父母家,完全是為了這個孩子的利益.由此可見,正確答案為選項B).

　　2. A).根據第五段第三句 Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit. 可知,正確答案為選項A).

　　3. C).根據第四段第三句 Medical... a custody battle with Robert Mays. 可知,正確答案為選項C).

　　4. A).根據本文第四段,尤其是這一段的第一句 Shortly after birth in December 1978, ...with wrong parents. 可知,正確答案為選項A).

　　5. D).根據第三段第二句 Thats an important development, one thats long overdue. 可以推斷,正確答案為選項D.

　　Its no secret that many children would be healthier and happier with adoptive parents than with the parents that nature dealt them. Thats especially true of children who remain in abusive homes because the law blindly favors biological parents. Its also true of children who suffer for years in foster homes because of parents who cant or wont care for them but refuse to give up custody rights.

　　Fourteen-year-old Kimberly Mays fits neither description, but her recent court victory could eventually help children who do. Kimberly has been the object of an angry custody battle between the man who raised her and her biological parents, with whom she has never lived. A Florida judge ruled that the teenager can remain with the only father shes ever known and that her biological parents have no legal claim on her.

　　The ruling, though it may yet be reversed, sets aside the principle that biology is the primary determinant of parentage. Thats an important development, one thats long overdue.

　　Shortly after birth in December 1978, Kimberly Mays and another infant were mistakenly switched and sent home with the wrong parents. Kimberlys biological parents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, received a child who died of a heart disease in 1988. Medical tests showed that the child wasnt the Twiggs own daughter, but Kimberly was, thus sparking a custody battle with Robert Mays. In 1989, the two families agreed that Mr Mays would maintain custody with the Twiggs getting visiting rights.Those rights were ended when Mr Mays decided that Kimberly was being harmed.

　　The decision to leave Kimberly with Mr Mays rendered her suit debated. But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing to sue on her own behalf. Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit.

　　Certainly, the biological link between parent and child is fundamental. But biological parents arent always preferable to adoptive ones, and biological parentage does not convey an absolute ownership that cancels all the rights of children.

　　1. What was the primary consideration in the Florida judges ruling?

　　A) The biological link.

　　B) The childs benefits.

　　C) The traditional practice.

　　D) The parents feelings.

　　2. We can learn from the Kimberly case that _________ .

　　A) children are more than just personal possessions of their parents

　　B) the biological link between parents and child should be emphasized

　　C) foster homes bring children more pain and suffering than care

　　D) biological parents shouldnt claim custody rights after their child is adopted

　　3. The Twiggs claimed custody rights to Kimberly because _______ .

　　A) they found her unhappy in Mr Mayscustody

　　B) they regarded her as their property

　　C) they were her biological parents

　　D) they felt guilty about their past mistake

　　4. Kimberly had been given to Mr Mays _________ .

　　A) by sheer accident B) out of charity

　　C) at his request D) for better care

　　5. The authors attitude towards the judges ruling could be

　　described as _________.

　　A) doubtful B) critical

　　C) cautious D) supportive

　　答案與解析：

　　1. B).根據第五段第二句 But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing to sue on her own behalf. 可知,法官確信Kimberly有權為自己的利益訴訟.對于Kimberly來說,她的利益就是生活在一個能使她更健康、更幸福的家庭.從本文開頭一句推斷,Kimberly的養(yǎng)父家能夠滿足她的要求,因此,法官判決她仍然生活在養(yǎng)父母家,完全是為了這個孩子的利益.由此可見,正確答案為選項B).

　　2. A).根據第五段第三句 Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit. 可知,正確答案為選項A).

　　3. C).根據第四段第三句 Medical... a custody battle with Robert Mays. 可知,正確答案為選項C).

　　4. A).根據本文第四段,尤其是這一段的第一句 Shortly after birth in December 1978, ...with wrong parents. 可知,正確答案為選項A).

　　5. D).根據第三段第二句 Thats an important development, one thats long overdue. 可以推斷,正確答案為選項D.