Yes, for most clients, and it holds because of what you do in the first week of the thread rather than because of what the policy says.

The line fails in a predictable way. It doesn't collapse — it erodes. A scheduling message picks up a sentence of context. The context turns into an update. The update turns into something that needs a real response, and by then you're four messages into a conversation you didn't agree to have, at a time you didn't choose.

One practitioner describes this precisely: they give out a second number and half the time regret it, because some clients begin using it as a supplemental session, or start texting the way a friend would. Their reading is that giving out a number is always a disguised boundary test.

What holds the line is answering scheduling texts with scheduling answers, every time, from the beginning — and moving anything else to the session in one short message rather than engaging with it. Practitioners who do this consistently report it works. The ones who report it failing usually describe having replied substantively once.

What does the drift actually look like?

It's rarely dramatic and it almost never starts with a crisis.

A typical sequence: "Can we move Thursday?" then "Can we move Thursday, this week has been rough" then a paragraph about why. Each message is reasonable. The third one is a different channel than the first.

The other common path is time rather than content. Scheduling texts arriving at eleven at night are still scheduling texts, and they're still a message you now have to decide about. One practitioner names this as the one thing they dislike about their business line — people text at all hours, usually about scheduling, and although they want to wait until they're back in the office, they sometimes forget and reply.

The third is the one that ends in blocking. A small number of clients escalate to using the number for crisis contact, and practitioners who have been there describe having to state very plainly that this is a boundary violation and then stop responding.

What do I say the first time it drifts?

Short, warm, and moving it rather than addressing it. Something like:

"Thanks for letting me know — that sounds like a lot. Let's start there on Thursday. I'll see you at two."

Two sentences. You've acknowledged the person, declined the channel, and reconfirmed the appointment. What you haven't done is respond to the content, which is the thing that would teach the thread it can carry content.

Do it the first time, not the fourth. The first drift is the cheapest one to redirect, because nothing has been established yet.

What wording prevents most of it?

Stating what it is for rather than what it isn't. Positive framing gives the client something to do; a list of prohibitions makes the channel feel policed.

"Text is the best way to reach me about appointments — booking, moving, cancelling. I check it on days I'm in the office and reply within one business day. Anything we're working on is better in session, and if something can't wait, please call 911, or call or text 9-8-8 for crisis support."

One practitioner's version of this is unusually clear and worth borrowing wholesale: they tell clients they only check the phone on days they hold sessions, and only use text for scheduling. Both halves matter — the scope and the cadence.

It is also, as it happens, the psychotherapy College's own worked example. Its commentary on electronic practice says registrants "should outline appropriate uses of technologies with clients (e.g., emailing or texting only for booking appointments, secure online platforms for the provision of therapy)" (CRPO Professional Practice Standards, Standard 3.4). The same College is equally clear that narrowing the channel doesn't put it outside the rules — the principles "will apply in any interaction with a client that is mediated by communications technology, even those that are administrative in nature (e.g. booking appointments)" (CRPO Electronic Practice Guideline). Scheduling-only is a recognised shape for the boundary. It is not a way out of consent or the record.

Two additions that carry weight. Say it out loud at intake as well as putting it in writing, because spoken policies get tested less. And if you work with young people, say it to the parent or guardian separately, since the heaviest after-hours contact many therapists describe comes from adults rather than from the client.

Who does it not hold for?

Clients for whom contact is the material. If reaching out between sessions is part of what you're working on, a scheduling-only channel is going to be tested, and that testing is clinical information rather than a policy failure. Plan for it rather than being surprised.

Guardians and parents. They didn't sign your agreement and often haven't been told the limit.

Clients in an acute stretch. Someone in real difficulty will use whatever channel they have. This is an argument for having named an alternative route clearly, not an argument against the policy.

Anyone you've replied to substantively once. The most reliable predictor. If you've had a real conversation by text with this person, the line for them is already somewhere else, and getting it back takes an explicit conversation rather than a firmer tone.

Is the drift a reason not to text at all?

For some practitioners, yes, and it's a coherent position — the argument that texting casualises the relationship and creates expectations you can't meet comes from exactly this pattern.

But the pattern is manageable and the alternative has costs of its own. Some clients are much easier to schedule by text, and some are unreachable any other way.

The thing that's genuinely not manageable is running scheduling-only texting from your personal number. If the line drifts there, you can't decline the channel without declining your own phone, and the fallback that practitioners describe — blocking a client's number — is a clinical event rather than an administrative one.

The short version

The line holds if you hold it in the first week and every week after. Say what the channel is for rather than what it isn't, answer scheduling with scheduling, move anything else to the session in two sentences, and tell the guardians as well as the clients.

About Rivet

Rivet is a Canadian practice line built for therapists — a separate number for calls, texts and voicemail, with video sessions and clinical tools in the same place. Your data stays in Canada, and transcription runs on Rivet's own hardware rather than a third-party AI service.

One plan, $65 CAD a month, everything included. Fourteen-day trial, no card.

See what's included · Start the trial