Opinion ID: 1630580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: least restrictive treatment alternative

Text: In addition to establishing that G.H. was a dangerous sex offender, the State also had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that neither voluntary hospitalization nor other alternative treatment less restrictive than inpatient treatment would prevent him from harming himself or others. [21] Lukin testified that while he had not prepared a specific treatment plan for G.H., it was his opinion that due to G.H.'s relatively high risk of recidivism and the fact that G.H. had limited experience with independent living during the past 20 years due to his incarceration, G.H. would require the highest available level of care, and that an inpatient treatment program would be the appropriate and least restrictive treatment alternative for him. In response to a question from a member of the Board regarding an appropriate treatment plan for G.H., Lukin testified: [M]y professional judgment would be that what would be best for [G.H.] would also be best for the community, and that is a residential or secure setting to continue the efforts that he started already, and to over a period of time step him down. And rather than releasing him directly to an environment where he's had very little success, living independently in the community, it would allow him a step toward greater approach so that his skills increase both in managing his sexual urges and his sobriety. We conclude that Lukin's testimony was sufficient as a matter of law to meet the State's burden of justifying civil commitment of a dangerous sex offender under SOCA.