The appellate court remanded the case following mother’s first appeal for compliance with the ICWA. On remand, the juvenile court summarily denied mother’s section 388 modification petition. In the second appeal, mother contended that the court erroneously believed it had no jurisdiction to address her 388 petition which sought to reverse the order terminating her parental rights and to place the minor with her. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The limited reversal and remand contained in the remittitur in the prior appeal precluded the juvenile court from entertaining mother’s section 388 petition. The limited reversal and remand was for the sole purpose of compliance with the notice provisions of the ICWA. The court’s jurisdiction was therefore limited to that issue, and the 388 petition was properly denied. By declining to hear the 388 petition, the juvenile court acted in the minor’s best interests, allowing him to achieve permanency and stability.