if in the same or related proceedings — is improper and a violation of the hearsay rule. See, e.g., Williams v. Wraxall, 33 Cal. App. 4th 120, 130 n.7, 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 658, 663 n.7 (“We ... cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (Emphasis added.)), modified on other grounds, 34 Cal. App. 4th 199b, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 458 (1995); In re Zemple, 489 N.W.2d 818, 820 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (“Appellant also claims that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of testimony given at the domestic abuse proceeding. We agree. . . . The testimony given by appellant’s father was inadmissible hearsay.”); Chapman v. Chapman, 96 Nev. 290, 293, 607 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1980) (<HOLDING>); May v. May, 829 S.W.2d 373, 376 (Tex. Ct.
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 the same hearing officer as in this case erred in substituting his judgment for that of the pertinent school board in that case holding that trial court erred in granting petition for termination of parental rights based on noncompliance with case plan when case plan was not filed and approved by the court until seven months after petition for termination was filed holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights