review of termination cases is ordinarily de novo. See, e.g., In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). To the extent Garrett’s claim of error rests upon statutory interpretation, however, our review is for correction of errors of law. See In re E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa 1998). The provisions of the Iowa ICWA are to be strictly construed and applied. Cf. In re J.W., 498 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Iowa Ct.App.1993). III. Motion to Strike Before attending to the merits of Garrett’s appeal, we must resolve a pending motion. In his further review brief, Garrett attached several exhibits which were not part of the record before the juvenile court. The State moved to strike this additional information. We grant the State’s motion to strike. See In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 815 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>); see also In re E.A., 552 N.W.2d 135, 138
holding that jury instructions attached to an appeal brief were not part of the record holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record holding that a district courts review of a  6330d appeal is limited to the administrative record and the parties are not entitled to discovery holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record