examination to thirty days, with a provision for an extension of fifteen days if extraordinary circumstances exist), -291.07(A) (requiring a mental health expert’s report to be submitted within ten working days after an examination), - 291.08(A) (requiring the court to hold a hearing within thirty days after a report is filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-291.07), 291.10(D)(3) (requiring the court to hold a competency hearing not less than three months before the juvenile’s eighteenth birthday). We conclude that the juvenile competency statutes provide for the statutory restoration program to proceed for the full 240 days if necessary, and only afterward must the court hold a final hearing to determine competency. Cf State v. Silva, 222 Ariz. 457, 461, ¶ 18, 216 P.3d 1203, 1207 (App.2009) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 24 Further, to the extent that the juvenile
holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority holding that while a magistrate lacked the authority to enter an order granting a motion to correct error and thus that the order was defective for failing to contain the judges signature or another indication it was approved or adopted by the trial court the city waived any challenge to the validity of the order by failing to make a timely objection and observing that the indiana supreme court has long held that defects in the authority of a court officer as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection and more recently this court has applied the same principle to civil proceedings and clarified that any objection to the authority of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity occurs or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect holding that because the twentyone month limit in the statute and rule governing criminal competency proceedings applies only to restoration treatment orders during an accuseds incompetency not the superior courts authority to determine competency the defendants claim conflated the authority to order restoration treatment with the authority to determine competency holding contractors could not claim recreational immunity because they had no continuing authority to determine whether the land should be open to the public holding that although the court has the authority to review facts not before the plan administrator the court should use that authority sparingly