This opinion will be unpublished and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
                              C9-96-576

     In the Matter of: Frances Bauer.

Filed June 25, 1996
Affirmed
Kalitowski, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. P09560162

James S. Dahlquist, 301 Fourth Avenue South #270, Minneapolis, MN 55415
(for Appellant Bauer)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Peter Fransway, Assistant
County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for
Respondent Hennepin County)

Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and
Schultz, Judge.
                                     
                        Unpublished Opinion

KALITOWSKI, Judge (Hon. Ann L. Alton, District Court Trial Judge)



Appellant Frances Bauer challenges the trial court order that her
commitment as a chemically dependent person be continued for one year. We
affirm.
                                     
                              Decision

The commitment must be ``justified by findings based upon evidence at the
hearing.'' Minn. R. Civ. Commitment 11.01; In re Fusa, 355 N.W.2d
456, 457 (Minn. App. 1984). Evidence to support the continued commitment
must be clear and convincing. Minn. Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 4 (1994).
Findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In re
May, 477 N.W.2d 913, 915 (Minn. App. 1991). The commitment will be
reversed if the trial court findings are insufficient to support the
conclusion that the requirements for commitment are met. In re
McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 1995). In deciding whether a
person continues to be chemically dependent and in need of commitment, the
court need not find
        
        that there has been a recent attempt or threat to
        physically harm self or others, or a recent failure
        to provide necessary personal food, clothing,
        shelter, or medical care. 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 (1994); see In re Smith, 392
N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn. App. 1986) (continued commitment as chemically
dependent).

Bauer contends the trial court based its conclusion on speculation by the
social services director of her facility that she would drink again if not
committed. She argues that there were no recent acts or threats that could
be interpreted as meeting the statutory requirement, and she notes that she
has not consumed alcohol for four months. See McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d
at 623-24 (reversing commitment as mentally ill because improperly based on
speculation as to future harm rather than substantial likelihood). Thus,
Bauer argues the trial court did not have clear and convincing evidence she
was chemically dependent and in need of continued commitment. We disagree.

In an initial commitment, the court must examine the person's recent
conduct. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 2(b) (1994) (defining
initial commitment as chemically dependent to require evidence of recent
harmful conduct). For a continued commitment, however, the court does not
need such evidence of recent conduct; instead, the court must determine
whether the person is likely to attempt to physically harm self or others
or fail to provide necessities unless involuntary commitment is continued.
Minn. Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 4.

Bauer's May 1995 commitment as chemically dependent was stayed; when she
continued to consume alcohol, the stay was revoked. She has abstained at
her present facility because the facility successfully controls her access
to alcohol. She continues to deny she is chemically dependent, and she
refuses to participate in the geriatric alcoholism treatment program.
Because of Bauer's 20-year history of drinking, the treatment team and her
son believed she would not be able to abstain from using alcohol unless
committed to a facility that controls access to alcohol. We conclude the
trial court had clear and convincing evidence that Bauer continues to be
chemically dependent and is likely to fail to provide herself with
necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.

Affirmed.