treatment center. Id. at 92, 993 P.2d at 1056. The court held hearings every thirty days to review the placement, and at the final hearing, he was released from the center but placed on JIPS. Id. J.G. appealed, arguing inter alia that he did not receive advance notice of the possibility of JIPS. Id. The court recognized that J.G. did not receive specific notice of the possibility of JIPS, but that he did have “notice of both the hearing and its subject.” Id. at 93, 993 P.2d at 1057. The court noted that “[ijndeed, the subject of the hearing had been the ongoing subject of past hearings” and that both “J.G. and his lawyer were given the opportunity to participate fully in these discussions.” Id.; cf. Pinal County Juv. Action No. J-169, 131 Ariz. 187, 189, 639 P.2d 377, 379 (App.1981) (<HOLDING>). ¶25 In the instant eases, the juveniles
holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it holding that defendant received requisite notice under rule 11 where inter alia he acknowledged at plea hearing that he had read the information understood it and discussed it with his attorney holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required holding that appearance at the scheduled hearing demonstrates actual notice of the hearing