In the Matter of J.P. / in the Matter of E.S.

Summary

The court held that the civil-commitment statute is constitutional because a finding of substance use disorder must be supported by clinical evidence, while findings concerning serious harm and less restrictive alternatives need not be. It also held that the statutory terms "chronic" and "habitual" are sufficiently guided by the statute's focus on health, social or economic functioning, and self-control. The evidence supported E.S.'s commitment but did not establish the required likelihood of serious harm for J.P., whose commitment order was vacated and remanded for entry of a consistent order.