But, divisions of this court have repeatedly recognized that the initial treatment plan adopted by the court as an order at the dispositional hearing may change at the termination hearing to a determination that no appropriate treatment plan can be devised for the parent. See People in Interest of C.Z., 2015 COA 87, ¶ 48, 360 P.3d 228; People in Interest of A.G., 264 P.3d 615, 622 (Colo.App.2010), rev'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 262 P.3d 646 (Colo.2011); People in Interest of T.L.B., 148 P.3d 450, 455 (Colo.App.2006).

On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case after holding that the trial court erred by determining that the relationship between the clerk and the caseworker did not require recusal. People ex rel. A.G., 264 P.3d 615, 616–17, 2010 WL 1492311 (Colo.App.2010) (selected for official publication). The court concluded that the relationship created an appearance of impropriety sufficient to warrant recusal, because “[a] disinterested observer could reasonably believe that the judge's ability to make unbiased credibility determinations about the caseworker, the child of his court clerk, would be impacted by the judge's relationship with the court clerk.”

The Department does not argue that this absence of information is harmless; it acknowledges that a "remand for the purpose of making any necessary additional inquiries" could be ordered. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the judgment must be reversed and remanded to the trial court for additional findings and further proceedings if needed. See People in Interest of A.G. , 264 P.3d 615, 621 (Colo.App.2010) (stating that an order may be set aside if the court's findings do not demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements and the appellate court cannot determine the basis for the order), rev'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds , 262 P.3d 646 (Colo.2011).¶ 22 Accordingly, on remand the Department must make the inquiries required by § 19-1-126(1)(a). If those inquiries reveal possible Indian heritage, then the Department must comply with the statute's notice requirements. If the inquiries reveal no possible Indian heritage, then the trial court may enter its termination order based on its prior findings and the evidence adduced from the Department's inquiries. Because it is possible that no ICWA notice will be required, and that, even if notice is required, no tribe will determine that the children are eligible for tribal membership, we also address the remaining issues raised by mother and father.

¶ 57 Consequently, when the court proceeds under section 19–3604(1)(b) because it determines that no appropriate treatment plan can be devised to address the parent's unfitness, the Department is relieved of its obligation to provide reasonable efforts or make reasonable accommodations. SeePeople in Interest of A.G., 264 P.3d 615, 621 (Colo.App.2010) (recognizing that if the court intended to terminate parental rights under section 19–3–604(1)(c), it needed to find that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but if it intended to terminate parental rights under section 19–3–604(1)(b)(I), it needed to find that no treatment plan could be developed for the parent), rev'd in part on other grounds, 262 P.3d 646 (Colo.2011).¶ 58 Here, the court initially approved a treatment plan for mother and father.

And it must be remembered that in determining whether to terminate a parent-child relationship, the court must " give primary consideration to the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child," § 19-3-604(3), C.R.S.2010— that is, it must examine the child's best interests. People in Interest of A.G., 264 P.3d 615, 621 (Colo.App.2010); People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288, 289 (Colo.App.2007). Because of the frequency and intensity of their interactions with a child, and their opportunity to observe interactions between the parents and the child as well as the effects of those interactions on the child, foster parents will often be in a unique position not only to possess information relevant to examining a child's best interests, but also to form an opinion as to whether termination is in a child's best interests.