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(收养孩子的家庭)because of parents who can’t or won’t care for them but refuse to give up custody(监护)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 her and 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(起诉)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.

36.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.

37.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

38.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

39.Kimberly had been given to Mr.Mays

A.by sheer accident B.at his request C.out of charity D.for better care

40.The author’s attitude towards the judge’s ruling could be described as

A.doubtful B.cautious C.critical D.supportive

　　

答案

小题1:B

小题2:A

小题3:C

小题4:D

小题5:D

　　以上是关于It’s no secret that many children would be healthier的参考答案及解析。建议大家看完问题先作答、再查看答案哦！

---

　　华图试题检索系统(https://gd.huatu.com/zt/questionqy/)是服务于考公试卷题目解答、职业考试试题解析的专业找答案系统，千万题库供用户查询，针对不同场景需求，提供文字搜题方式，秒出解析答案，实现搜题最佳体验。

试题答案何处找，下方扫码见分晓！

　　华图题库旨在为考生提供高效的智能备考服务，全面覆盖公务员考试、事业单位、教师招聘、职业资格、医卫类、计算机类等领域，为您提供行政职业能力测验、公共基础知识、教育基础知识、职业能力倾向测验及综合应用能力等相关试题答案解析。拥有优质丰富的学习资料和备考全阶段的高效服务，助您不断前行！

　　你以为刷题就是不停的找题去做？NO，NO，NO！刷题也是有技巧的。高效地刷题，让你事半功倍。点击下载华图在线APP体验更佳。关注广东华图教育微信gdhtgwy，政策问题实时答，考试信息不漏看。

---

　　特别说明：华图题库平台所收集的试题内容来源于互联网，仅供学习交流使用，不构成商业目的。版权归原作者所有，如涉及作品内容、版权和其它问题，请与我们取得联系，我们将在第一时间处理，维护您的合法权益。

（编辑：广东华图）