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. Four-year-old Kimberly Mays fits neither description, but her recent court victory could ually 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 ager 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 Kimberly was, thus sparking a custody battle with Robert Mays. In , 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 (起诉) on her own behalf. Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as s 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. What was the primary consideration in the Florida judge’’s ruling