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

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

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

Once upon a time there was a child ready to be born. One day the child asked God, “They tell me you are going to send me to the 　1　 tomorrow but how am I going to 　2 there being so small and helpless?” God replied. “Among the many 　3 　, I have chosen one for you. She will be waiting for you and will take care of you.”

“But tell me, here in Heaven, I don’t do 　4 else but sing and smile. That’s 　5 I need to be happy!”

“Your angel will sing for you and will also 　6 for you every day. And you will feel your angel’s love and be　 7___.”

“And how am I going to be able to 　8 when people talk to me, if I don’t know the language they speak?”

“That’s easy,” said God. “Your angel will tell you the most beautiful words you will 　9　 hear, and with much patience and 　10__, your angel will teach you how to 　11__.”

“I’ve heard on the earth there are 12 men. Who will protect me?”

God put his arm 　13 the child, saying, “Your angel will 　14 you, even if it means 　15 　 her life!”

“But I will always be sad 　16　 I will not see you any more.”

God hugged the child, “Your angel will 　 17 talk to you about me.”

At that moment there was much peace in Heaven, but voices from the earth could already be　 18__. The child knew he had to start on his 　19　 very soon, and he asked God one more question, “Oh God, since I am about to leave now, please tell me my Angel’s name!”

God replied, “Your angel’s name is not 　20　 to remember. You will simply call her Mommy!”

1. A. moon　 B. sun　 C. earth 　 D. universe

2. A. live　 B. die　 C. hope　 D. leave

3. A. babies　 B. angels　 C. doctors　 D. nurses

4. A. nothing　 B. everything C. something　 D. anything

5. A. that　 B. what　 C. which　 D. whom

6. A. smile　 B. pray　 C. dance　 D. play

7. A. sorrowful　 B. lonely　 C. funny　 D. happy

8. A. explain　 B. get　 C. understand　 D. accept

9. A. even　 B. just　 C. later　 D. ever

10. A. care　 B. anger　 C. fear　 D. loneliness

11. A. run　 B. speak　 C. walk　 D. swim

12. A. strong　 B. bad　 C. weak　 D. good

13. A. to　 B. in　 C. around　 D. on Ks5u

14. A. help　　 B. protect　 C. adapt　　 D. punish

15. A. causing　 B. struggling　 C. wasting　　 D. risking

16. A. or　　　　 B. unless　　 C. because　　 D. whether

17. A. always　 B. hardly　　 C. seldom　　 D. never

18. A. lowered　 B. lost　　　 C. heard　　　 D. controlled

19. A. duty　　　 B. business　 C. holiday　　 D. journey

20. A. hard　　　　　 B. easy　 C. convenient　　　　 D. important