The juvenile court’s conclusion that the minors had no Indian heritage was not erroneous where the grandmother’s information was vague and speculative. At the 366.26 hearing, the department noted that the court had made no ICWA findings regarding the minors’ father. The department noted that the paternal grandmother said she was told as a child she had Native American ancestry, but she didn’t know what tribe, had no additional information, and had no living relatives to consult. The court found that there was no reason to know that the minors would fall under ICWA. On appeal, the mother contended that the court’s conclusion was error, and that remand for ICWA notice was required. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The information provided was too vague, attenuated, and speculative to give the dependency court any reason to believe the minors might be Indian children.