(1) The trial court abused its discretion by revoking the defendant’s probation when the State failed to present evidence that he violated the condition of probation that he “not reside in a household with a minor child.” Although the trial court interpreted the term “reside” to mean that the defendant could not have children anywhere around him, State v. Strickland, 169 N.C. App. 193 (2005), construed that term much more narrowly, establishing that the condition is not violated simply when a defendant sees or visits with a child. Because the evidence showed only that the defendant was visiting with his fiancée’s child, it was insufficient to establish a violation. (2) The trial court improperly revoked the defendant’s probation for violating conditions that he not (a) socialize or communicate with minors unless accompanied by an approved adult; or (b) be alone with a minor without approval. The conditions were not included in the written judgments and there was no evidence that the defendant ever was provided written notice of them. As such, they were not valid conditions of probation.