Free TOEFL Reading Test 'current Trends In California Custody Law.'

12 Questions | Total Attempts: 71

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Free TOEFL Reading Test

Please read the following passage. In this free TOEFL reading test there are 12 multiple choice questions which you will need to answer. You will have 20 minutes to complete this test so plan your time wisely. You will also have a possibility to:- skip a given question and come back to it later,- mark a given question for review so you can come back to it before test submission,- go back to any already completed question at any time. You will be able to take this test three times. Once you have submitted your test, you will see your score with a break down of your responses and correct answers. GOOD LUCK:)


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Current Trends in California Custody Law  There are two primary approaches to child custody: (1) Judith Wallerstein approach that favors the one psychological parent concept; and (2) Maddis Hetherington approach that recognizes that children bond with both parents not just one. The Hetherington approach stresses: (1) Powerful child-caretaker relationships; (2) Brainpower; (3) Nurtured talent; and (4) Nurtured belief system. Here are some relevant cases illustrating these opposing ideologies. In Young vs. Hector (a Florida case), the Father stayed at home, Mother an attorney was always working and never around. The Court appointed expert recommended custody be awarded to the mother because of her economic stability. The Appellate court reversed the trial court's custody decision and held that the court should preserve the roles the parties themselves established, that is, the stay-at-home Father was “the primary caretaker” and the Mother was the worker/breadwinner. [A] The Appellate Court held that financial stability could be provided via child support. [B] This case, although a Florida case, demonstrates the general inclination that California courts now have. [C] This case is a great example of the gender differences that historically favored the mother, which have now shifted to keep pace with the times. [D] In Wainwright, the parents mutually decided that there would be no drug use while each had custody obligations. However, the couple's 6 year old upon returning to Mom from Dad's house promptly reports that Dad has been smoking marijuana. The Dad in this case did have a prescription for medical marijuana use from his Doctor. Nonetheless, the Mom seeks an order from the court for a hair sample to confirm he was using marijuana. The Court of appeal denied to issue this order because of constitutional privacy issues. In the marriage of Schiffman the issue was which parent has the authority to decide a child's last name (surname). This case adopts the best interest test in this context and placed the burden of proof on the person seeking a name change. The court considered how the name has been used and the symbolic role of the name for the particular family. The court even considered whether the child would be embarrassed because he has a different name than other members of his family. In another case a pregnant mom wanted to give her child her former name. Before the child was born, the dad brought a motion for a pre-custody order and a surname order, mandating that his surname be given to the child. The trial court “split the baby” by ordering a hyphenated name but finding that it was too early to ask for custody. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the Schiffman case was not controlling. While the court did not approve of the hyphenated name it recognized that the trial court had the authority to make such an order. The important difference for the court between Douglas and Schiffman was that the child was unborn so the best interest test is inapplicable leaving the decision within the Judge's discretion. In our final case law example, Camacho v. Camacho the Mom wanted to end the Father's visitation asserting that he was “emotionally immature”. Mom sought an order mandating Dad to receiving counseling. The trial court granted the counseling order but it was reversed on appeal. The appellate court held that a parent need not be “emotionally mature” to visit his/her children. The court decided that children should be able to have the experience of both parents even if one parent is immature, unless said immaturity is detrimental to their safety.  1. The phrase child custody in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to
    • A. 

      Child imprisonment

    • B. 

      Child welfare

    • C. 

      Child care

    • D. 

      Child legal rights

  • 2. 
    The Appellate court reversed the trial court's custody decision and held that the court should preserve the roles the parties themselves established, that is, the stay-at-home Father was “the primary caretaker” and the Mother was the worker/breadwinner. [A] The Appellate Court held that financial stability could be provided via child support. [B] This case, although a Florida case, demonstrates the general inclination that California courts now have. [C] This case is a great example of the gender differences that historically favored the mother, which have now shifted to keep pace with the times. [D]2. According to paragraph 3, the child custody was most probably awarded to
    • A. 

      The father

    • B. 

      The mother

    • C. 

      Both parents equally

    • D. 

      Neither of them

  • 3. 
    In Wainwright, the parents mutually decided that there would be no drug use while each had custody obligations. However, the couple's 6 year old upon returning to Mom from Dad's house promptly reports that Dad has been smoking marijuana. The Dad in this case did have a prescription for medical marijuana use from his Doctor. Nonetheless, the Mom seeks an order from the court for a hair sample to confirm he was using marijuana. The Court of appeal denied to issue this order because of constitutional privacy issues. 3. Which statement can be inferred from paragraph 4
    • A. 

      The court of appeal rejected the mother’s petition because she resided outside the court’s jurisdiction

    • B. 

      The father was addicted to marijuana

    • C. 

      It is impossible to detect marijuana usage based on a hair sample examination

    • D. 

      Personal privacy protection is enshrined in the American constitution

  • 4. 
    In Wainwright, the parents mutually decided that there would be no drug use while each had custody obligations. However, the couple's 6 year old upon returning to Mom from Dad's house promptly reports that Dad has been smoking marijuana. The Dad in this case did have a prescription for medical marijuana use from his Doctor. Nonetheless, the Mom seeks an order from the court for a hair sample to confirm he was using marijuana. The Court of appeal denied to issue this order because of constitutional privacy issues. 4. The phrase this order in paragraph 4 refers to
    • A. 

      The order to award child custody to the mother

    • B. 

      The order to award child custody to the father

    • C. 

      The order to examine father’s hair sample

    • D. 

      The order to place the child in a foster home

  • 5. 
    In the marriage of Schiffman the issue was which parent has the authority to decide a child's last name (surname). This case adopts the best interest test in this context and placed the burden of proof on the person seeking a name change. The court considered how the name has been used and the symbolic role of the name for the particular family. The court even considered whether the child would be embarrassed because he has a different name than other members of his family. 5. In paragraph 5 all of the following factors have been considered by the court EXCEPT
    • A. 

      Child's own preference

    • B. 

      Child's best interest

    • C. 

      The role of the surname for the family

    • D. 

      Probable embarrassment the child may experience bearing a surname which is different than that of other family members

  • 6. 
    In another case a pregnant mom wanted to give her child her former name. Before the child was born, the dad brought a motion for a pre-custody order and a surname order, mandating that his surname be given to the child. The trial court “split the baby” by ordering a hyphenated name but finding that it was too early to ask for custody. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the Schiffman case was not controlling. While the court did not approve of the hyphenated name it recognized that the trial court had the authority to make such an order. The important difference for the court between Douglas and Schiffman was that the child was unborn so the best interest test is inapplicable leaving the decision within the Judge's discretion. 6. In paragraph 6, the word mandating is closest in meaning to
    • A. 

      Prohibiting

    • B. 

      Rejecting

    • C. 

      Justifying

    • D. 

      Ordering

  • 7. 
    In another case a pregnant mom wanted to give her child her former name. Before the child was born, the dad brought a motion for a pre-custody order and a surname order, mandating that his surname be given to the child. The trial court “split the baby” by ordering a hyphenated name but finding that it was too early to ask for custody. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the Schiffman case was not controlling. While the court did not approve of the hyphenated name it recognized that the trial court had the authority to make such an order. The important difference for the court between Douglas and Schiffman was that the child was unborn so the best interest test is inapplicable leaving the decision within the Judge's discretion.7. In can be inferred from paragraph 6 that most likely
    • A. 

      The child will bear a hyphenated name

    • B. 

      The child will bear the mother’s name

    • C. 

      The child will bear the father’s name

    • D. 

      The child’s name will be decided on at its birth

  • 8. 
    In another case a pregnant mom wanted to give her child her former name. Before the child was born, the dad brought a motion for a pre-custody order and a surname order, mandating that his surname be given to the child. The trial court “split the baby” by ordering a hyphenated name but finding that it was too early to ask for custody. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the Schiffman case was not controlling. While the court did not approve of the hyphenated name it recognized that the trial court had the authority to make such an order. The important difference for the court between Douglas and Schiffman was that the child was unborn so the best interest test is inapplicable leaving the decision within the Judge's discretion. 8. The word it in paragraph 6 refers to
    • A. 

      The trail court

    • B. 

      The court of appeal

    • C. 

      The hyphenated name

    • D. 

      The question of child's surname

  • 9. 
    In our final case law example, Camacho v. Camacho the Mom wanted to end the Father's visitation asserting that he was “emotionally immature”. Mom sought an order mandating Dad to receiving counseling. The trial court granted the counseling order but it was reversed on appeal. The appellate court held that a parent need not be “emotionally mature” to visit his/her children. The court decided that children should be able to have the experience of both parents even if one parent is immature, unless said immaturity is detrimental to their safety. 9. The word reversed in paragraph 7 is closest in meaning to all of the above EXCEPT
    • A. 

      Changed back

    • B. 

      Annulled

    • C. 

      Reaffirmed

    • D. 

      Rejected

  • 10. 
    In our final case law example, Camacho v. Camacho the Mom wanted to end the Father's visitation asserting that he was “emotionally immature”. Mom sought an order mandating Dad to receiving counseling. The trial court granted the counseling order but it was reversed on appeal. The appellate court held that a parent need not be “emotionally mature” to visit his/her children. The court decided that children should be able to have the experience of both parents even if one parent is immature, unless said immaturity is detrimental to their safety. 10. In paragraph 7 the word detrimental is closest in meaning to
    • A. 

      Insignificant

    • B. 

      Unrelated

    • C. 

      Proven

    • D. 

      Of primary importance

  • 11. 
    The Appellate court reversed the trial court's custody decision and held that the court should preserve the roles the parties themselves established, that is, the stay-at-home Father was “the primary caretaker” and the Mother was the worker/breadwinner. [A] The Appellate Court held that financial stability could be provided via child support. [B] This case, although a Florida case, demonstrates the general inclination that California courts now have. [C] This case is a great example of the gender differences that historically favored the mother, which have now shifted to keep pace with the times. [D] 11. Look at the four squares [ ] that indicate where the following sentence could best be inserted in the passage. It is thus quite likely that in future fathers’ pleas for custody will be looked at more favorably by the courts.  Select the letter of the square that shows where the sentence could be added.
    • A. 

      Option 1

    • B. 

      Option 2

    • C. 

      Option 3

    • D. 

      Option 4

  • 12. 
    Current Trends in California Custody Law  There are two primary approaches to child custody: (1) Judith Wallerstein approach that favors the one psychological parent concept; and (2) Maddis Hetherington approach that recognizes that children bond with both parents not just one. The Hetherington approach stresses: (1) Powerful child-caretaker relationships; (2) Brainpower; (3) Nurtured talent; and (4) Nurtured belief system. Here are some relevant cases illustrating these opposing ideologies. In Young vs. Hector (a Florida case), the Father stayed at home, Mother an attorney was always working and never around. The Court appointed expert recommended custody be awarded to the mother because of her economic stability. The Appellate court reversed the trial court's custody decision and held that the court should preserve the roles the parties themselves established, that is, the stay-at-home Father was “the primary caretaker” and the Mother was the worker/breadwinner. [A] The Appellate Court held that financial stability could be provided via child support. [B] This case, although a Florida case, demonstrates the general inclination that California courts now have. [C] This case is a great example of the gender differences that historically favored the mother, which have now shifted to keep pace with the times. [D] In Wainwright, the parents mutually decided that there would be no drug use while each had custody obligations. However, the couple's 6 year old upon returning to Mom from Dad's house promptly reports that Dad has been smoking marijuana. The Dad in this case did have a prescription for medical marijuana use from his Doctor. Nonetheless, the Mom seeks an order from the court for a hair sample to confirm he was using marijuana. The Court of appeal denied to issue this order because of constitutional privacy issues. In the marriage of Schiffman the issue was which parent has the authority to decide a child's last name (surname). This case adopts the best interest test in this context and placed the burden of proof on the person seeking a name change. The court considered how the name has been used and the symbolic role of the name for the particular family. The court even considered whether the child would be embarrassed because he has a different name than other members of his family. In another case a pregnant mom wanted to give her child her former name. Before the child was born, the dad brought a motion for a pre-custody order and a surname order, mandating that his surname be given to the child. The trial court “split the baby” by ordering a hyphenated name but finding that it was too early to ask for custody. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the Schiffman case was not controlling. While the court did not approve of the hyphenated name it recognized that the trial court had the authority to make such an order. The important difference for the court between Douglas and Schiffman was that the child was unborn so the best interest test is inapplicable leaving the decision within the Judge's discretion.  In our final case law example, Camacho v. Camacho the Mom wanted to end the Father's visitation asserting that he was “emotionally immature”. Mom sought an order mandating Dad to receiving counseling. The trial court granted the counseling order but it was reversed on appeal. The appellate court held that a parent need not be “emotionally mature” to visit his/her children. The court decided that children should be able to have the experience of both parents even if one parent is immature, unless said immaturity is detrimental to their safety.12. A heading for a short summary of the passage is given below. Complete the summary by choosing three answer options that forward the most important ideas in the passage and are linked with the introductory sentence. Some answer choices below do not belong in the summary because they express ideas not found in the passage or express minor and unimportant ideas.  New trends in child custody law put the father on an equal footing with the mother. Answer options:
    • A. 

      Traditional roles mothers and fathers play in a family are changing which is reflected in child custody court rulings.

    • B. 

      The US Supreme Court decided that child custody is a sole prerogative of state legislatures.

    • C. 

      Maddis Hetherington approach has been favored by California and Florida courts.

    • D. 

      The courts usually decide to awarded hyphenated names to unborn children.

    • E. 

      Child custody law where possible takes into account the best interest of a child which is some cases mean the rejection of motions filed by mothers.

    • F. 

      Children are awarded access to both parents even if one of them is deemed unprepared for the role of a parent.