Interest of B.E.

¶1Filed 6/11/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72015 ND 142

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11In the Interest of B.E.

¶12

¶13Adam D. Miller, Psy.D, Petitioner and Appellee

¶14

¶15v.

¶16

¶17B.E., Respondent and Appellant

¶18

¶19

¶20

¶21No. 20150146

¶22

¶23

¶24

¶25Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas E. Merrick, Judge.

¶26

¶27AFFIRMED.

¶28

¶29Per Curiam.

¶30

¶31Lonnie Olson, State’s Attorney, 524 Fourth Avenue Northeast, Unit 16, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

¶32

¶33Mark T. Blumer, P.O. Box 7340, Fargo, N.D. 58106, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

¶34Interest of B.E.

¶35No. 20150146

¶36

¶37Per Curiam.

¶38[¶1] B.E. appeals from a district court order for less restrictive treatment ordering him to undergo outpatient treatment throughout the remainder of his previously imposed 90-day treatment order.  B.E. argues the district court’s order continuing outpatient treatment is inappropriate because he stated he would voluntarily participate in outpatient treatment.  Because alternate treatment is appropriate and meets B.E.’s treatment needs, the district court’s order is not clearly erroneous.  SeeInterest of L.B., 2015 ND 12, ¶¶ 19-20, 858 N.W.2d 322 (chemically dependent persons who require treatment are entitled to the least restrictive treatment that will meet their treatment needs).  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

¶39[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶40Dale V. Sandstrom

¶41Daniel J. Crothers

¶42Lisa Fair McEvers

¶43Carol Ronning Kapsner