Case library / Boundary drift with no sexual contact
“Hope” and “Faith”
In short
Revocation stayed. Five years of probation. Eight causes for discipline in total
five yrs probationTwo clients from a residential eating-disorder program, code names in the text messages, and two overnight stays. Five years of probation.
The findings in this decision are the clearest statement of the California dual-relationship standard anywhere in the dataset, and they are auditable against your own practice.
What happened
The associate ran roughly fifty sessions with a client at a residential recovery center, then began informal texting during treatment.
After discharge the contact became near-daily phone calls, weekly meetings, dinners, a trip to the coast, and two overnight stays at the therapist's home.
They used pseudonyms — “Hope” and “Faith” — in their text messages so that nobody would know they were still in contact.
She discussed her other clients with this client, by name.
The facility terminated her for continuing to communicate with the client. The same pattern was alleged with a second client.
What it was charged as
Charged twice, and separately per client: gross negligence, and incompetence.
Recklessly causing emotional harm.
Failure to maintain confidentiality as to the other clients.
The outcome
Revocation stayed. Five years of probation. Eight causes for discipline in total.
No cost recovery stated in the orderWhat the rule actually says
The findings in this decision are the cleanest statement of the California standard anywhere in the dataset. The therapist “engaged in an avoidable dual relationship … simultaneously with the therapeutic relationship, which continued following the termination” and “fostered dependency … by engaging in frequent, non-urgent, and casual telephone, text message, and in-person communications.” Two elements, both of which you can audit in your own practice this afternoon: is the second relationship avoidable, and is the contact non-urgent.
Discussion
Analysis, not part of the decision
Two elements appear in the findings, and both can be checked against a caseload this afternoon. The therapist “engaged in an avoidable dual relationship” that ran alongside and then beyond the therapeutic one, and she “fostered dependency… by engaging in frequent, non-urgent, and casual telephone, text message, and in-person communications.” Avoidable, and non-urgent. Those are the two words to keep.
The pseudonyms are the tell. “Hope” and “Faith” existed so that nobody would know the contact was continuing. Concealment is not an aggravating flourish on the underlying conduct; it is evidence that the clinician knew the conduct would not survive being seen. A useful working test is whether you would describe the arrangement, in those words, to your supervisor.
Note also that she discussed her other clients with this client, by name — the same independent confidentiality breach that appears in the slow-boil case, in a completely different fact pattern. Eight causes for discipline in total, from what began as informal texting during treatment.
Where insurance reaches, and where it does not
This is squarely inside what board-defense cover is for, and it is the shape of case where the sublimit actually gets tested. A contested administrative hearing with an expert and a defense lawyer at $250 to $500 an hour will run past a $5,000 sublimit before the prehearing conference. The programs sold to California therapists carry $5,000, $25,000 or $35,000 of it.
What would have changed it
- The pseudonyms are the part to notice. Choosing code names is an act of concealment, and concealment is the reliable signal that the person already knows. There is no clinical decision that improves when it becomes unspeakable to a supervisor.
- “Non-urgent” is the operative word in the finding. Between-session contact is not prohibited. Between-session contact with no clinical purpose, at volume, is what got charged.
Questions
For a law and ethics seminar, or for yourself
- Apply the two findings — avoidable, and non-urgent — to three real contacts from a caseload you know. Which survive?
- The facility terminated her employment before the Board acted. What obligations does an employer have when it discovers this, and what obligations does the clinician have at that point?
- Why does using code names in text messages make the case worse rather than merely stranger?
Source. This write-up is drawn from the signed public decision in the case number above. Names, cities and employers have been removed — why. To pull the original, open the Board's quarterly newsletter archive, find the issue covering March 6, 2025, and match the case number in the Formal Disciplinary Actions section. Not legal advice.
