*683 OPINION
Pope appeals the order of the trial court finding him mentally ill and committing him to Anoka State Hospital. We affirm.
FACTS
Pope is a 30-year-old man who has been treated in Stаte facilities for mental illness since he was 14 years old. He was at Anoka State Hоspital voluntarily until a petition for involuntary commitment was brought on April 16, 1984. Pope was evaluated by two court-appointed examiners who filed their reports with the cоurt.
Trial was held on April 24, 1984, and appeal was taken on May 23, 1984, from the resulting order for commitment dated April 25, 1984.
The trial court found that Pope suffered from a borderline personality disorder, that he had recently threatened others, and that treatment at Anoka State Hospital was needed. Less restrictive alternatives were rejeсted because of Pope’s behavorial instability.
ISSUES
1. Did the trial court properly commit Pope to Anoka State Hospital as mentally ill?
2. May Pope properly assert his right to treatment and complain of past treatment on appeal from an order for commitment?
ANALYSIS
I
If a trial court finds by clear and convincing evidencе that a person has a psychiatric disorder, that he poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others, and that no less restrictive treatment facility is appropriate, it may order commitment to a state hospital. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 13 (Supp. 1983). On appeal, Pope has not contested the trial court’s finding of mental illness or likelihood of harm to himself or others. Pope argues that commitment to Anoka State Hospital was not the least restrictive available alternative.
The trial сourt has an obligation to consider alternatives less restrictive than commitment and to order hospitalization only if less restrictive alternatives are rejectеd. Minn.Stat. § 253B.09, subds. 1, 2 (1982). The record shows that the possibility of treatment at some facility other than Anо-ka State Hospital was carefully considered. Doctor Robert King, Pope’s рsychologist at Anoka, testified that appellant was “absolutely not” ready for рlacement in the community, noting the “high probability” of recurring aggressive behavior.
Doсtor Daniel Wiener, the court-appointed psychologist, testified that Pope was “not prepared to go outside the hospital now[.]” If placed in a less restrictive treatment facility, Doctor Wiener testified, Pope would require “a goоd deal of supervision” and “extra help” to assist his adjustment.
Doctor James Jacоbson, a psychologist appointed at Pope’s request, testified that “appropriate treatment can take place at the Anoka State Hosрital or take place in the community[.]” The court did order preparation оf a treatment report with a description of discharge planning.
Because this wаs a trial on the commitment petition, the court properly evaluated Pope’s alternatives at the time of trial. Based upon undisputed testimony that Pope remained behaviorally unstable and frequently assaultive, the trial court rejected immediate placement in the community. That decision was supported by clear аnd convincing evidence and will not be overturned.
II
Appellant argues that his right to treаtment has been violated. This is an appeal from an order for commitment. The treatment of patients is properly raised before a hospital review boаrd and not before the committing court.
See In re Moll,
DECISION
The triаl court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Pope was mentally ill and that there was no suitable alternative to commitment at Anoka State Hospital. Pope has prematurely raised his right to treatment. Treatment decisions are the province of the hospital review board and Pope’s right to treatment may not be asserted until treatment is actually denied.
Affirmed.