of evidence that he had made any sexual advances toward women at the hospital. The State responds that he went looking for one of the women he was interested in impregnating and was prevented from contacting her only through physical intervention. We first note that the evidence of KE.W.’s ongoing psychotic behavior itself does not support the statutory requirement of a recent overt act or continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm that K.E.W. is likely to seriously harm others. “Texas courts universally hold that the State must show more than delusions, angry or psychotic behavior, or other facts that merely confirm mental illness” in order to “establish the requisite [recent] overt act or continuing pattern of behavior” required by section 574.034(d). C.O., 65 S.W.3d at 182 (<HOLDING>); see also C.C., III, 253 S.W.3d at 893; F.M.,
holding that ajlthough a continuing pattern of hostile or abusive behavior is ordinarily required to establish a hostile environment a single instance can suffice when it is sufficiently egregious and holding that the plaintiff established that she suffered a sexually hostile working environment where she alleged she was raped by a male coworker holding that the doctrine may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct holding that the jury in a continuing criminal enterprise case must unanimously agree not only that defendant committed some continuing series of violations but also must agree as to which violations make up that continuing series holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred holding that evidence of continuing delusional behavior hostile behavior and provocative statements to others merely reflected that an individual was mentally ill and in need of hospitalization but did not provide the continuing pattern of behavior necessary to support involuntary commitment