Probation condition prohibiting sex offender from dating or socializing with anyone who has custody of children was vague and overbroad. Following Klatt’s conviction for lewd conduct with a minor, the trial court imposed probation conditions that Klatt challenged on appeal. Held: Reversed. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered Klatt not to date, socialize, or form any romantic relationship with a person who has physical custody of a minor unless approved by the probation officer. The appellate court found this condition unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The condition would prohibit Klatt from socializing with a large category of persons regardless of whether he socialized with their children. Further, the terms “socialize” and “date” are too ambiguous for a reasonable probationer to know with sufficient precision what conduct is prohibited. Remand was required in order for the trial court to consider imposing a more precise probation condition for the purpose of protecting minors in Klatt’s actual presence. The court also reaffirmed its recent decision in People v. Friday (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 8, which addressed the probation conditions required by Penal Code section 1203.067, subdivision (b)(3)-(4). The required waiver of any privilege against self-incrimination is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Further, the required participation in polygraph examinations must be narrowly construed to allow only questions relating to the successful completion of the sex offender management program, the crime of which appellant was convicted, or related criminal behavior. The psychotherapist-patient privilege waiver provision requires waiver only insofar as necessary to enable communication between the probation officer and the psychotherapist.