It’s no secret that many children would be healthier and happier with adoptive parents than with the parents that nature dealt them. That’s especially true of children who remain in abusive homes because the law blindly favors biological parents. It’s also true of children who suffer for years in foster homes (收養孩子的家庭) because of parents who can’t or won’t care for them but refuse to give up custody (監護)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 baffle between the man who raised herand her biological parents, with whom she has never lived. A Florida judge ruled that the teenager can remain with the only father she’s 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. That’s an important development, one that’s long overdue.
Shortly after birth in December 1978, Kimberly Mays and another infant were mistakenly switched and sent home with the wrong parents. Kimberly’s biological parents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, received a child who died of a heart disease in 1988. Medical tests showed that the child wasn’t the Twiggs’ own daughter, but Kimt only 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 fights. 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 ( 起訴) 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 aren’t always preferable to adoptive ones, and biological parentage does not convey an absolute ownership that cancels all the rights of children.
Choose correct answers to the question:
1. What was the primary consideration in the Florida judge’s ruling?
A. The biological link.
B. The child’s 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 parent and child should be emphasized
C. foster homes bring children more pain and suffering than care
D. biological parents shouldn’t claim custody rights after their child is adopted
3. The Twiggs claimed custody rights to Kimberly because
A. they found her unhappy in Mr. Mays’ custody
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 author’s attitude towards the judge’s ruling could be described as
1.[B] 推理判斷題。根據第2段最后一句“女孩被判給她認識的父親，即養父，而非生父”以及全文的最后一句中all the rights of children,可以推斷,該判決是從孩子本身的利益出發的，故選B而排除A。
2.[A] 事實細節題。根據倒數第2段最后一句“金伯莉不僅僅是大人們覺得合適就可以隨意處置的“財產”可知a與該句相符，其中的personal possessions為原文中property的同義表達。