In In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 95-0074, 186 Ariz. 138, 920 P.2d 18 (App. 1996), K.B. received notice three hours before the hearing. She attended the hearing, and the trial court ordered her to undergo treatment. There is no mention in the opinion whether K.B. objected to the shortened notice because the Court concluded that, since the petition seeking her treatment complied with neither the statutory form nor the statutory time requirements of A.R.S. 36-533 and 36-536, the trial court's order had to be vacated. Id. at 139, 920 P.2d at 19. The Court observed, though, that, "given the liberty interests implicated in a court-ordered treatment proceeding, a more liberal reading" of the statutes at issue was "precluded," id. and added that "strict compliance with the notice requirement" is required as "is confirmed by the fact that the notice provisions cannot be waived." Id.