no countervailing evidence was referenced, and certain paragraphs were related to extraneous guidelines. Additionally, the District Court had the benefit of a lengthy decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed the judicial determination that Defendants abused and neglected J, C, and JJ and the termination of their parental rights as to these three children but reversed the state family judge’s finding of abuse and neglect with respect to two other children [their other two biological children]. See N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. C.J., 2014 WL 3881311 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 8, 2014) (per curiam); see also N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. C.J., 2016 WL 4608231 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 6, 2016) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 3 . No one suggests that the sentencing court
holding that trial court erred in granting kinship legal guardianship as to the two biological children holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally holding in termination of parental rights case that trial court erred in taking judicial notice of evidence before him in guardianship hearing in same case holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages