In re L.S.

*527¶34 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision.

¶35 The State presented no evidence that L.S. posed an “imminent risk of serious harm to self or others” as is the State’s burden -under § 53-20-102(15), MCA (2005). At the time of the hearing and for four months prior thereto, L.S. did not exhibit any behaviors that posed an imminent risk of serious harm. The RFST’s determination that L.S. was seriously developmentally disabled and its recommendation for commitment was limited to the facts as they existed at the time of L.S.’s emergency admission in December 2006-not as they existed at the…