Parole conditions must be reasonably related to the compelling state interest of fostering a law-abiding lifestyle, and a condition that bars lawful activity will be upheld only if it has a relationship to the crime of which parolee was convicted or is reasonably related to deter future criminality. (In re Stevens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1228.) Petitioner was convicted of Penal Code section 288(c)(1) and sentenced to prison for three years and eight months. When released on parole, he agreed to participate in a High Risk Sexual Offender program. On his own initiative and at his expense, petitioner also entered into private therapy. His parole officer asked petitioner to sign a waiver of confidentiality as to the sessions with the private therapists, indicating that he would have to sign it if he wished to continue with the sessions. Petitioner filed for habeas relief in the trial court which granted it, opining it would be against public policy to require a waiver. The People appealed and claimed that the requested waiver of confidentiality fell within the requirements of the High Risk program. The appellate court disagreed, noting that such a condition is unreasonable and unnecessary and counter productive to petitioner’s successful re-entry into society. It also expressed concerns that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would consider revoking petitioner’s parole for not signing the waiver, noting that he had a right to due process as to whether a demand for waiver was reasonable.