This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals CX-95-2424 In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.H.N., Child. Filed May 14, 1996 Reversed and remanded. Schultz, Judge Lyon County District Court File Nos. JX-95-50310, J6-95-50360, J9-95-50315 Kathryn M. Keena, Lyon County Attorney, 607 West Main Street, Marshall, MN 56258 (for Respondent Lyon County) John M. Stuart, Minnesota State Public Defender, Charlann Winking, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for Appellant Child) Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Harten, Judge, and Schultz, Judge.(*) [Footnote] (*)Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Unpublished Opinion SCHULTZ, Judge (Hon. George I. Harrelson, District Court Trial Judge) Appellant was charged with one count of participating in a drive-by shooting, one count of receiving stolen property, and one count of theft. Appellant admitted to all three charges. The district court adjudicated appellant delinquent, committed him to the Commissioner of Corrections for placement in the Minnesota Home School at Sauk Centre, Minnesota, and ordered him to pay restitution. Appellant challenges the dispositional order, claiming (1) the district court failed to make the required findings under Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1994), and (2) the order was arbitrary because the placement was not the least restrictive alternative necessary and the placement does not serve appellant's best interests. Because the district court failed to make the required findings, we reverse and remand. Decision 1. Appellant argues the district court committed reversible error by failing to make adequate written findings in support of appellant's disposition. Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1994), provides that a dispositional order: shall contain written findings of fact to support the disposition ordered, and shall also set forth in writing the following information: (a) why the best interests of the child are served by the disposition ordered; and (b) what alternative dispositions were considered by the court and why such dispositions were not appropriate in the instant case. ``The failure to make the statutorily required findings constitutes reversible error.'' In re Welfare of M.A.C., 455 N.W.2d 494, 499 (Minn. App. 1990) (failure to describe the type of treatment provided, how that treatment would serve the juvenile's best interests, and how that treatment would help solve the juvenile's problems constitutes reversible error). Here, the dispositional order does not contain the required findings. The order does not address the alternative dispositions considered, why such alternatives were not appropriate, or why the disposition ordered serves the appellant's best interests. Respondent concedes that the dispositional order does not contain the necessary findings and agrees that this case should be remanded. We reverse and remand this case in order for the district court to make the requisite findings. 2. Appellant also contends the district court's dispositional order was arbitrary because appellant's placement was not the least restrictive alternative necessary to restore him to law-abiding conduct and appellant's placement does not serve his best interests. See In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147, 151 (Minn. App. 1987) (trial court must take the least drastic step necessary to restore law-abiding conduct in the juvenile); Minn. Stat. 𨵜.185, subd. 1 (dispositional order must state in writing why the disposition serves the child's best interests). ``Written findings are essential to enable meaningful appellate review.'' M.A.C., 455 N.W.2d at 499. Because the district court here failed to make the required findings, we cannot determine from the record whether appellant's placement in the Minnesota Home School was the least restrictive alternative necessary or whether the placement serves appellant's best interests. Reversed and remanded.