In the Matter of: Robert W. Shirley.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1994) State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals C7-96-1239 In the Matter of: Robert W. Shirley Filed October 15, 1996 Affirmed Randall, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. P38330678 Thomas Bennett Wilson, III, Gayle Gaumer, Wilson Law Firm, 4933 France Avenue South, Suite 220, Edina, MN 55410 (for Appellant Robert Shirley) Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Peter Stiehm, Assistant County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for Respondent ReEntry House) Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Foley, Judge.(*) [Footnote] (*)Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2. Unpublished Opinion RANDALL, Judge (Hon. Ann Alton, District Court Trial Judge) Appellant Robert W. Shirley had been previously committed as mentally ill. ReEntry House filed a petition seeking his continued commitment. After a hearing, the trial court ordered continued commitment as mentally ill. Shirley appeals. We affirm. Facts Appellant Robert Shirley has a long history of mental illness. In 1994, he stopped taking his medication and began to display symptoms again. This led to his commitment as mentally ill in March 1994, September 1994, and September 1995. At the time of the hearing, appellant was living at ReEntry House. Although he has said he is ready to live in an apartment, Dr. Chris Meadows, the court-appointed examiner, and appellant's mother testified as to why this has not occurred. Appellant did not keep his appointments to see apartments and claims to be particular about the kind of neighborhood in which he would like to live. In addition, because of other commitments, he has not spent much time searching for an apartment. Dr. Meadows diagnosed appellant with a schizoaffective disorder. He explained that appellant continues to be delusional, even when he takes his medication. Appellant believes that if he stops taking the medication for a long enough period, he will improve and have the ability to function in daily activities. The record shows that when appellant has not been under a court order, he has discontinued his medication and his condition has deteriorated. The request by ReEntry that appellant be recommitted is based primarily on appellant's assertion that he will stop taking his medication if not recommitted. While it is difficult to predict, Dr. Meadows testified that if not recommitted, appellant would likely stay on his medication a short while, then stop taking it and deteriorate. The trial court found that if not involuntarily committed, appellant would likely attempt to physically harm himself or others and fail to provide necessities, based on [his] persistence in indicating that he will abandon his medication therapy if his commitment is terminated. [H]e has a long history of mental illness and hospitalizations for treatment. Nonetheless, he cannot acknowledge the fact that he is mentally ill or that his mental functioning has drastically deteriorated when he is not on psychotropic medications. He adamantly denies having had any problems in the past when he is off his psychotropic medication, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. In the past few years, he has demonstrated an inability to care for himself and his medical needs when he is not taking his psychotropic medications. He left a hospital [against medical advice] in sub-zero weather clad only in a hospital gown and a pair of slippers. His thinking was disorganized and he obsessed on the letter ``N''. He required restraints in the hospital on a nearly daily basis due to his aggressive behavior. When not on medications, [he] decompensates and is at high risk to engage in behaviors that would cause physical harm to himself or others. If [he] does not take his psychotropic medications, he will decompensate. He has made it clear he will stop taking those medications when his commitment is no longer in effect. Therefore, one can only conclude that, if [his] commitment ends, he will decompensate to the dangerous condition he was in at the time he was committed in March of 1994. The trial court ordered appellant's continued commitment to ReEntry House and the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center as mentally ill. This appeal followed. Decision Appellant argues the evidence does not show he is likely to harm himself or others. On a petition for continued commitment, it is not necessary to show a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others, or a recent failure to provide necessities. Minn. Stat. 𨵕B.12, subd. 4 (1994); cf. Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 13(b) (1994) (standard for initial commitment requiring such proof). Instead, the court must find that the patient is likely to attempt to physically harm self or others, or to fail to provide necessary personal food, clothing, shelter, or medical care unless involuntary commitment is continued. Minn. Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 4. Findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In re Cordie, 372 N.W.2d 24, 31 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Sept. 26, 1985). Appellant argues that the commitment must be based on overt evidence of a current condition that will result in the likelihood of future harm, not just speculation. See In re McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Minn. 1995) (initial commitment as mentally ill). He contends the court here merely found he would be harmful to himself if he discontinued his medications, but there was no finding he is presently psychotic or unable to obtain necessities, or poses a danger to himself or others, as the court-appointed examiner agreed. A patient's symptoms may be in remission due to medication, but may recur when the patient fails to take the medication. See In re Malm, 375 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Minn. App. 1985) (commitment as mentally ill and dangerous). In that case, precommitment behavior may be considered. Id. Appellant's symptoms are not completely in remission. Dr. Meadows testified appellant continues to experience delusions about his medication and evidence indicated he has said repeatedly he will stop taking the medication when he is no longer committed. The court found he has deteriorated in the past when not taking his medication, showing an inability to provide for himself and his medical needs and a likelihood of harming himself or others. The court cited an earlier instance in which he stopped taking his medication, left a hospital in subzero weather clad only in a gown and slippers, and required restraints on nearly a daily basis due to aggressive behavior. The trial court determination that appellant is likely to attempt to harm himself or others or to fail to provide necessities if not committed is not clearly erroneous. Appellant also argues that the trial court order did not identify conduct to support the commitment. Minn. Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 7 (findings required for continued commitment). A remand may be required if a trial court does not make sufficient findings. See In re Stewart, 352 N.W.2d 811, 813 (Minn. App. 1984) (remand for findings where order for continued commitment failed to specify any conduct supporting determination, state statutory criteria of commitment met, or discuss less restrictive alternative). In this case, the trial court made extensive findings, and appellant's argument is without merit. Finally, appellant contends the trial court improperly rejected the less restrictive alternative of independent living solely because an apartment had not yet been found. When ordering a continued commitment, the trial court must consider less restrictive alternatives. Minn. Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 7. The court must consider alternative programs and the patient's treatment preferences. In re King, 476 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn. App. 1991). The trial court decision will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Id. The trial court considered less restrictive alternatives such as apartment living, but rejected them because appellant is presently searching for a suitable apartment and until he finds one, it is not an option. It noted he has procrastinated somewhat and that the treatment team represented to the court they will help appellant find an apartment. Appellant's choice of placement, an apartment, is not available yet because he has not completed the process of choosing one. The trial court could not commit him to a placement not yet available, and the findings indicated this option would be pursued. This record does not display either startling facts or a consistent pattern of egregious conduct as is often the case in renewed commitments. But that is not the standard. The record supports the trial court's determination, and we affirm its commitment of appellant to ReEntry House and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. See In re Knapp, 351 N.W.2d 391, 393 (Minn. App. 1984) (commitment to Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center upheld where patient missed appointments to discuss admission into another facility, Hennepin County Medical Center was unwilling to treat because patient did not follow medical advice, preferred facility would not be available for five weeks, and social worker recommended Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center). Affirmed.