AFFIRMED. CRAWLEY, J., concurs specially. YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON and MURDOCK, JJ., concur in the result. 1 . A review of those exhibits reveals that none of those reports were actually prepared by Sanders. CRAWLEY, Judge, concurring specially. I concur with the main opinion’s holding that if the trial court erred in this proceeding by admitting hearsay, the error was harmless. I write specially only to point out that, whilé a juvenile court may, of course, take notice of its own records, it may not “remove the documentary materials in the court files from the purview of the hearsay rule.” Y.M. v. Jefferson County Dep’t of Human Res., [Ms. 2010755, January 24, 2003] - So.2d -, - (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (citing In re A.B., 308 Ill.App.3d 227, 719 N.E.2d 348, 241 Ill.Dec. 487 (1999)) (<HOLDING>). ‘“A court'may take judicial notice of matters
holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim holding that jurisdiction in the district court was terminated by the trial courts order to close the case and that dss was required to file a new petition alleging neglect holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that the trial court erroneously took judicial notice in a parentalrightstermination proceeding of the entire neglect file that led to the removal of the children from the mother