Disposition order could only be conditionally affirmed where juvenile court failed to comply with the requirements of the ICWA. During the dependency proceedings, the juvenile court properly inquired about the minor’s Indian ancestry, and the Department interviewed several relatives to obtain information. Two of the relatives gave additional information concerning Creek, Seminole, and Blackfeet ancestry, but could provide no further proof of their heritage. The juvenile court found the Blackfeet claim insufficiently supported, and the Creek and Seminole ancestry too remote. The appellate court remanded for further ICWA proceedings. Neither explanation proffered by the court constituted an adequate ground for failure to give notice of the dependency case to the identified tribes. The court further found that the jurisdiction finding was supported by substantial evidence. There was ample evidence that mother was hiding her drug use, because she avoided or refused to take drug tests, and provided a diluted sample when she did take the test. There was substantial evidence the continuous illicit drug use that had led to the removal of mother’s older children was continuing, and the minor, an infant, was at substantial risk of harm.