likely, if he doesn’t take his medication, he will become psychotic, and will require rehospitalization.” The doctor also testified that appellant had a history of violence, but no facts were presented to support that conclusion. Further, appellant’s witnesses testified that he had never been violent and the judge found them credible. Evidence that appellant, when he does not take his medication, is delusional and talks to himself is insufficient to meet the burden of finding by clear and convincing evidence that he will be a danger to himself or others “within the reasonably foreseeable future.” N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2h and i. See In Re Commitment of Robert S., 263 N.J.Super. 307, 311, 622 A.2d 1311 (App.Div.1992); cf. In Re Commitment of A.A., supra, 252 N.J.Super at 179, 599 A.2d 573 (<HOLDING>). “Evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ when it
recognizing that the harm suffered by family members in combination with other factors  would presumably only be persecution where  the applicant not only shares or is perceived to share the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family members but was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence holding that because persecution cannot be based on a fear of psychological harm alone petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal based on the psychological harm she would suffer if her us citizen daughter were to undergo fgm holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person