Z.B.

The probate court appointed 16-year-old H.C.’s brother and sister-in-law as her guardians over the objection of her mother, L.B. L.B. contends the court committed constitutional error when it declined her requests for appointed counsel. She also asserts the guardianship is not supported by substantial evidence and that the court failed to obtain a statutorily required report and comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude L.B. was not entitled to appointed counsel and that the results of a child protective services investigation were adequately reported to the trial court. In the unpublished portion we conclude that only the ICWA claim has merit. We therefore order a limited reversal for compliance with the ICWA, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

H.C. Comes to Live with Z.B. and Heather B.

H.C. was bom in May 1995. Her brother Z.B., 16 years her senior, had always been a father figure to her. Z.B. became concerned about his sister in *1240 the spring of 2008, when she was in seventh grade. Her academic performance had plummeted and she had…