criteria for involuntary admission on all three bases under the mental health and developmental disabilities code section five life one day one  subject to involuntary admission is a relatively new wrong and that has to deal that deals with a stop someone who refuses treatment or is not adequately and hearing to treatment  and basically they're allege that if they are treated on an inpatient basis they will become a person who meets the standard under number one or number two which is what i refer to as farm in medication case be in writing and it shall be accompanied by a statement on the record of the court's findings of fact conclusions of law trophy is arguing to this co case and that exception his the capable of repetition and avoiding review exception to the movement's doctrine the order in this case was for ninety days and i think this court would agree ninety days is too short of a duration to see this action fully completed to its end so persons would not be able to even bring these matters to this or if there was an exception to the was the finding the court did not indicate whether that was by way of deterioration of ability to function or suffering or admission according to the statute again we're left with the same boy the same blank area we don't know what what did it work fine did the court find that he was recently expected to harm  seen this court that the trial could never express lane eight factual findings related to whether joseph met the statutory criteria for involuntary admission i think fifty the poor some big findings about he would be a danger to someone else if he didn't take his medication or something along those lines so i think that again that decision not sufficient to meet the requirements of three guys and sixteen in conjunction with the other cases that this has decided under that particular statute that's there's a second issue in  different medications were requested in the state's expert was a person a doctor by the name of dr tracy she was a psychiatry i think she was in fact the chief psychiatrist titian and that she had actually the other doctor had actually instructed charles v and giving him written information on benefits and the side effects of the th or two of the mental health codes that there were as to the alternatives for the proposed treatment that is a requirement in addition to the informing the responded that then if it's on the side of x and in fact there has been one case that has found that was decided only on that basis in the case involved a alternatives and that's the nicholas l p s what if there are no alternatives what are you supposed to provide on your honor i believe that there are always alternatives and i think that you can look at the testimony been deemed to be inappropriate so what the state is trying to get us to do your honor is to read something into the two days one zero two statute that doesn't exist namely   by this court have held that there must be a strict instructions of two days one or two and dad if we start wording that process your honor those are in place to i don't think it is any again that there is evidence in this case that there were no viable alternatives because dr tracy testified that these were less restrictive there were less those would have to be admitted into evidence to prove that in fact he had been advised of alternatives but i look at the record your honor and i did not find any reference to any type of alternatives it was never brought up in the testimony at all and even when the respondent brought it up himself and said i was supposed to be advisable on it it's something like that think it's at the right age ninety one excellent hearing the testimony of the doctors was extremely good and there i think everybody agrees with that i think the issue is whether or not you know the findings were s but this in this case all of the evidence was presented and the only thing that can be complained of is that fish and there was not here here's a good theory and one of the best that i've seen really and there really can be no doubt that all three of the reasons for and i think that's where we have to go as far as the second issue on the site prompted madison again this there was really good that the legislatures use of the water shall in three days shade sixteen will just be a road away i think that the legislature has previously determined that this is something that needs to be complied with or else it would say mang or something else along those lines that the word shall i believe we need to adhere to that we're dealing with constitutional fundamental rights not to be said to involuntary admission in this particular case and i think that we need to strictly construe all the struct statutes that up all those rights and the only way that we can do that is by requiring specific findings of fact and secondly  to the medication portion of this appeal i think that if we go with what the state wants us to do it will just turn into a claim in pretty much every case