Here.

Problematic language here:

The lower court did not inquire about the tribal status of respondent or the children as required by MCR 3.965(B)(2). However, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that it “will not reverse an otherwise proper termination absent a showing that a party suffered an actual deprivation of an important right.” In re Osborne, 459 Mich 360, 369 n 10; 589 NW2d 763 (1999). Respondent has not shown that the lower court’s failure to inquire about tribal status in fact deprived her of an important right. Accordingly, any error in the lower court’s failure to inquire about tribal status was harmless.

Problematic for many reasons, but mainly because the Michigan Supreme Court found in May:

Therefore, before a state court can determine whether ICWA applies to the proceedings, the court must first make the critical determination whether the child is an “Indian child.”

In re Morris, *13

1. At the preliminary hearing, the court must inquire about Indian heritage. While MCR 3.965(B)(2) frames the inquiry in terms of actual tribal membership, sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which membership might be based is adequate to trigger the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a). See part IV(A) of the opinion. As we have noted, not all tribes keep written rolls and it is possible for a parent to be unaware that she or he is a member of a tribe. See n 19 of the opinion and accompanying text.

In re Morris, Appendix (emphasis added).