This opinion will be unpublished and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

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                        Unpublished Opinion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

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.

1. Appellant argues the district court committed reversible error by
failing to make adequate written findings in support of appellant's

Minn. Stat. § 260.185, subd. 1 (1994), provides that a dispositional
        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

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.