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 because of parents who can't or won't care for them but refuse to give up custody rights. Fourteen-year-old Kimberly May 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 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 May 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 May. In 1989 ,the two families agreed that Mx. May would maintain custody with the Twiggs getting visiting rights. Those rights were brought to an end when Mr. May decided that Kimberly was being harmed. The decision to leave Kimberly with Mr. May rendered her suit debated. But the judge made it clear that Kimberly did have standing to sue on her own behalf, therefore 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. What was the primary consideration in the Florida judge's ruling?