Under ICWA, placement of the minor with a parent did not necessitate a finding of serious bodily harm. The minors were removed from the mother and placed with the father. Jurisdiction was dismissed. On appeal, the mother argued that before the juvenile court could remove the minor, I., who was an Indian child, it was required to make a finding supported by expert testimony that continued custody of I. was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the plain language of section 361, subdivision (c)(6) does not require such a finding if the minor is placed with a parent. This interpretation is also consistent with the express purpose and legislative intent of ICWA, which expressly focuses on the removal of Indian children from their parents and placement in foster and adoptive homes.