the statutory and regulatory authority to select appropriate placements and license them. The Division argues that the judge’s decision in this case, therefore, violates the separation of powers clause of the State constitution. See N.J. Const., art. Ill, 111 (“The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this Constitution.”). The Division concedes that the Family Part may exercise its jurisdiction and order a particular placement “as between two fit, licensed homes.” See, e.g., In re C.R., 364 N.J.Super. 263, 283, 835 A.2d 340 (App.Div.2003) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 369, 845 A.2d 1252
recognizing the courts jurisdiction to resolve disputes between competing permanency plans that are reasonably plausible holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction recognizing that generally disputes between purchasers of a debtors assets and third parties are not within the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction but recognizing that disputes concerning the sale order itself may be sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction holding that in ruling on a rule 12b1 motion the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes regarding jurisdiction