There was no error where the court trial court proceeded with a 366.26 hearing without notice to the tribes, where the extent of information available was information from a paternal grandmother that the child “may have Indian in him.” Grandmother was not a party to the proceedings, and even if she was, she did not say that the child was either a member of a tribe or the child of tribal members eligible for enrollment. The information was too vague and speculative to give the court reason to believe that the minors might be Indian children. The court distinguished this case from In re Levi U. because that case did not present the issue of whether the information regarding Indian heritage was sufficient to trigger the ICWA’s notice requirements. Also, it was not grandmother’s failure to specify a tribe, but her failure to assert any information that the minors had known Indian heritage, which rendered the information insufficient.