Cited by

8 the evidence relied upon in reaching the court’s conclusions.” d 32, 37 (Minn. App. 1986).

d 32, 37 (Minn. App. 1986).

at 811; -37 (Minn. App. 1986).

In In re Danielson, this court explained: “The consideration of less restrictive alternatives is a matter of great significance.” ().

(“The consideration of less restrictive alternatives is a matter of great significance.” (quotation omitted)).

The district court “must consider alternatives to commitment and choose the least restrictive available placement if commitment is ordered.” d 32, 37 (Minn. App. 1986).

We have explained the importance of th ose statutory requirements as follows: “The drafters of the Commitment Act clearly intended to require specificity in the findings of the [district] courts, and we have often stressed the need for findings on each of the statutory requisites with a clear recitation of the evidence relied up on in reaching the court’s conclusions.”

–37 (Minn. App. 1986) (citing § 253B.09, subd.

We have stated that “[t]he consideration of less restrictive alternatives is a matter of great significance,” and that the drafters of the commitment act intended specificity in the findings of each of the statutory requirements “with a clear recitation of the evidence relied upon in reaching the [district] court’s conclusions.” (quotation omitted).

We address both appeals, believing the issues raised are “capable of repetition yet evading review.”

(remand due to insufficient findings).

This court has been faced on previous occasions with the intrusiveness of neuro-leptic drugs but did not directly address the question until