I chose the example of the social worker texting a client late at night because it presents a grey area in professional boundaries. Social workers should be able to contact their clients, especially regarding services and support. However, this communication should happen during appropriate hours and through professional channels. Texting a client close to midnight, even if the topic is work-related, crosses a boundary and can create confusion about the nature of the relationship. It may also give the impression that the social worker is available at all hours, which can lead to future boundary challenges and even burnout. This behavior was inappropriate, and the social worker should have set clear expectations with the client about when and how to communicate. The remedy should include informing the client that non-emergency communication should only occur during business hours. The agency should also implement a communication policy and provide training on ethical digital interactions to prevent similar situations.

For the boundary dynamic, I chose the example of a social worker posting case-related details online, even though the client’s name was not mentioned. This stood out because it shows how confidentiality can be breached even when names are omitted. Sharing identifiable details like specific circumstances, demographics, or outcomes can still lead to recognition, especially in smaller communities or among people familiar with the situation. A similar real-life example involved a nurse in Texas who posted about a measles outbreak at her hospital. She didn’t name any patients, but her Facebook comments included enough detail that others could potentially identify who she was referring to. This shows how easily privacy can be compromised online. To better understand this, I read a peer-reviewed article by DiLillo and Peters (2023), emphasizing that even de-identified posts can lead to ethical violations when they include recognizable details. The article underscored the need for extreme caution when sharing anything related to client work online and encouraged professionals to treat all case information, even general anecdotes, as confidential. This helped reinforce my understanding that professional boundaries in the digital age require heightened discretion.

Regarding Reamer’s recommendation that social workers develop a social media policy and share it with clients, I believe this is an innovative and necessary strategy. Having a clear policy helps set expectations early in the professional relationship and creates accountability for the client and the practitioner. It also provides a reference point if boundary issues arise. A firm social media policy should include clear guidelines that professionals and clients should not follow or friend each other on any platform, no work-related communication should occur through social media, and that posting about clients or the therapeutic process directly or indirectly is strictly prohibited. A zero-tolerance policy for posting client-related information can help eliminate grey areas and protect confidentiality. This strategy would be highly effective, especially when paired with regular training and open conversations with clients about digital boundaries. As social media continues to evolve, social workers must avoid ethical risks and maintain the trust at the core of the client relationship.