State v. C. V.-I.

ORS 426.307(6) allows a court to continue a person's involuntary commitment if the court determines that "the individual is still a person with mental illness by clear and convincing evidence and is in need of further treatment." The state must prove that the person is "unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at a non speculative risk of 'serious physical harm' . . . in the near future."  State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019). 

C.V.-I appealed an order that continued her commitment to the custody of OHA and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support that due to her mental disorder, she was unable to provide for her basic personal needs. ORS 426.307(6) allows a court to continue a person's involuntary commitment if the court determines that "the individual is still a person with mental illness by clear and convincing evidence and is in need of further treatment." The state must prove that the person is "unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at a non speculative risk of 'serious physical harm' . . . in the near future."  State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019).  The court held that the evidence that showed C.V.-I's history of having refused to take medication and abusing methamphetamine was not speculative as to risk of harm in the near future, and thus, the record was sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the hearing, C.V.-I was unable to meet her basic personal needs necessary to avoid serious physical harm.  Affirmed.