majority. Our Supreme Court has concluded that limitations on fundamental rights during community custody terms that help prevent the criminal from further criminal conduct for the duration of his or her sentence are constitutional. See, e.g., Riley, 121 Wn.2d at 37-38 (limiting a computer hacker’s right to associate with other computer hackers). Nonetheless, such limitations must be “reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state.” Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 350 (concluding that a prohibition on a convicted sex offender’s contact with minors was not justified where the victim was not a minor). The fundamental right at issue in this case is Letourneau’s right to raise her children without State interference. See In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 15, 969 P.2d 21 (1998) (<HOLDING>) cert. granted sub nom. Troxel v. Granville,
recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing that noncustodial parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing a parents right to rear his or her children without state interference as a constitutionallyprotected fundamental liberty interest recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children