In re Caldwell, Docket No. 197219. The Court that a special panel shall be convened pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1996-4 to resolve the conflict between this case and In re Halbert, 217 Mich.App. 607 (1996). The Court further orders that the opinion in this case released August 8, 1997, is hereby vacated.
See MCL 710.51(6)(a). In In re Halbert, 217 Mich.App. 607, 611–612, 552 N.W.2d 528 (1996), rev'd in part on other grounds by In re Caldwell, 228 Mich.App. 116, 576 N.W.2d 724 (1998), this Court clearly ruled—contrary to petitioners' argument in the present case—that in applying MCL 710.51(6), courts are to look at the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition. The Court stated:
The applicable statutory two-year period runs immediately backwards two years from the date of the filing of the petition. In re Halbert, 217 Mich App 607, 612; 552 NW2d 528 (1996). In this case, the petition to terminate respondent-father's parental rights for step-parent adoption was filed on January 10, 2018.
This two-year time period " 'commence[s] on the filing date of the petition and extend[s] backwards from that date for a period of two years or more.' " Hill, 221 Mich App at 689, quoting In re Halbert, 217 Mich App 607, 612; 552 NW2d 528 (1996) (alterations by Hill Court). That is, the "clear and unambiguous statutory language provides that the court must determine whether statutory grounds for termination exist by looking at the two years immediately preceding the filing of the petition."
Therefore, the applicable period for determining whether respondent's conduct met the conditions specified in the statute would commence on May 26, 2000, and extend back for two or more years before that date, to at least May 26, 1998. MCL 710.51(6)(b); In re Halbert, 217 Mich. App. 607, 612; 552 N.W.2d 528 (1996). In December 1998, well within that period, respondent wrote petitioner mother and requested visitation with A.L.Z.
CORRIGAN, C.J. This Court convened this special panel under Administrative Order No. 1996-4, now MCR 7.215(H)(3), to resolve the conflict between the prior vacated opinion in this case, In re Caldwell, 225 Mich. App. 801 (1997), and In re Halbert, 217 Mich. App. 607; 552 N.W.2d 528 (1996), regarding the interpretation of MCL 710.51(6); MSA 27.3178(555.51)(6). The original Caldwell panel, in compliance with Administrative Order No. 1996-4, now MCR 7.215(H)(1), followed this Court's holding in Halbert that an incarcerated parent falls outside the scope of MCL 710.51(6); MSA 27.3178(555.51)(6).
This Court has recently held that the applicable two-year statutory period "commence[s] on the filing date of the petition and extend[s] backwards from that date for a period of two years or more." In re Halbert, 217 Mich. App. 607, 612; 552 N.W.2d 528 (1996). Thus, the probate court erred when it concluded that § 51(6) refers to any two-year period before the filing of the petition.
Therefore, we hold that the probate court did not clearly err in finding that respondent did not provide support under § 39(2) and that he was subject to termination of his parental rights in accordance with § 39(1). Recently, in In re Halbert, 217 Mich. App. 607, 615-616; 552 N.W.2d 528 (1996), this Court reversed a termination of parental rights, holding: Respondent's lengthy incarceration before the filing of the petitions for termination of his parental rights and for adoption — and, hence, his inability to earn a living and acquire the wherewithal to provide support for [the child] — take respondent outside the intended scope of MCL 710.51(6); MSA 27.3178(555.51)(6).