Failure to comply with ICWA notice requirements did not require reversal where minor had already reached the age of majority. Mother argued that lack of compliance with the ICWA notice requirements required reversal of the orders regarding her 20-year-old developmentally-disabled dependent daughter. The appellate court found that the error was moot. Since the minor was now 20 years old, she was no longer an “Indian child” who could be subject to ICWA proceedings if the orders mother challenged were reversed. There was no basis for the institution of ICWA proceedings and therefore there was no meaningful relief available to mother or any possible Indian tribe.