fantasies and
failures to make disclosures until after he had failed the polygraph tests. 
She admonished Hart after he admitted that he had engaged in conversation with
the fifteen-year-old girl, who reminded him of one of his previous victims, and
that he had started secret sharing with the girl.  Ward also related a
conversation with the mother of the fifteen-year-old girl where Ward was told
that Hart had asked the girl and her younger brother to go on his paper route
with him one night without any supervision and that the mother would not allow
them to go with Hart.
Choate,
the director who implemented the new sex offender program, agreed with the
assessments of Hart by Ward and Young.  Choate testified that Hart Awas being very
noncompliant, argumentative and just not willing to follow the steps of the
counseling program.@ 
Choatetreatment.
 




Hart=s other argument is that
the revocation was based on his thoughts and that there was no physical action
that would warrant revocation.  Hart=s
witnesses included the mother of the fifteen-year-old girl, who stated that she
was not concerned about her daughter=s
safety because she was watching Hart.  Various other members of the church
testified that there was no inappropriate or unsupervised contact between Hart
and the girl, that Hart was always within sight of a chaperone, and that Hart
never acted inappropriately at church.
Condition
No. 34 required Hart to attend and participate in the sex offender program
approved by the trial court and to abide by all rules and regulations of the
program.  Hart has confused an appearance of participating in a sex offender program
and abiding by its rules and regulations with a sincere and good faith
participation in