ICWA notice was not required where the father retracted his claim of Indian heritage. The father told the juvenile court that he might have Indian heritage, but that the matter needed to be researched. He did not mention any tribe. The mother denied Indian heritage. Three weeks later, the father told the court he did not have Indian heritage. On appeal from the disposition hearing, the mother claimed that the juvenile court erred by issuing dispositional orders without ICWA notice, arguing that the ICWA notice requirements were triggered when the father made the initial statements regarding possible Indian heritage. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Because the father retracted his claim of Indian heritage, and because there was no other basis for suspecting that the minor might be an Indian child, the trial court properly proceeded without ICWA notice.