The Counsellor's Log

Establish what kind of disclosure this is. This is not an ordinary counselling confidence. A 16-year-old is a child under the Children's Act, 1998 (Act 560), and the relationship described - an adult giving money and gifts to a schoolgirl and asking her to meet him at a hotel - is a pattern consistent with sexual exploitation. That converts the question from 'should I keep a secret?' to 'what does protecting this child require?'

Apply the limits of confidentiality honestly. Confidentiality is a professional duty with recognised exceptions: risk of serious harm to the client or others, and child protection. At the start of counselling Mr Nartey should already have explained those limits in age-appropriate terms; if he did, he is not now betraying a promise, he is honouring a stated boundary.

The course of action

1. Tell Adjoa first, before anyone else, what he must do and why, and offer to be with her when it is done. Secrecy from her is not protection; surprise is what destroys trust.
2. Record the facts as disclosed - dates, gifts, the hotel request - factually and without interpretation, on the day.
3. Report through the school's child protection route to the head teacher and, where the school's policy and national child protection arrangements require it, to the Department of Social Welfare and the police Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit. This is not a decision to take alone.
4. Involve her mother, but with support, and with the school present. The fear of beating and withdrawal from school is a real safeguarding concern about the home response, so the school should not simply hand her over; it should engage the parent with the guidance coordinator and, where appropriate, social welfare present.

What he must not do is either keep the confidence entirely, leaving a child exposed to a planned hotel meeting, or disclose indiscriminately to staff. The child's safety is the overriding duty; her trust is the means of achieving it, not an obstacle.

Separate three different requests that are arriving as one.

1. A parent's complaint. If a parent is complaining about counselling, the head has a legitimate interest in the handling of the case. Mr Nartey can describe process and outcome - that counselling occurred, that safeguarding steps were taken, that a referral was made - without revealing the content of other students' sessions.
2. The counselling log itself. Counselling records are kept for the client, not for the institution, and are not a general management document. Handing over a log that contains other students' disclosures would breach confidentiality towards every one of them and would destroy the service: no student will disclose to a counsellor whose notes circulate in the head's office. Where the school's policy gives the head access for a specific safeguarding purpose, access should be to the relevant entry, in the presence of the counsellor, recorded, and limited to what the purpose requires.
3. The reputation remark. This should be named politely and refused. 'Let us remember the school's reputation' invites the suppression of a safeguarding matter to protect a sports festival. The professional reply is that the school's reputation is best protected by being seen to handle this properly, and that he cannot allow a competition to influence a child-protection decision.

Practical steps

• Offer the head a written summary of actions taken on this case, not the log.
• Ask for the request in writing, and record the response in writing, copied to the guidance and counselling coordinator.
• Escalate if pressure continues - to the district guidance coordinator or the child protection focal person.

The principle. The head teacher directs the school; he does not own the counselling relationship. A counsellor who cannot refuse an improper request for records cannot offer a confidential service at all.

The plan has four fronts; a single conversation will not hold.

1. Immediate safety. An explicit, practical plan about the mid-term visit: she does not travel, she has a named adult to call, and the phone and money are discussed without moralising. Confiscating the phone without a plan removes her only means of contacting the counsellor.
2. The reporting strand. Mr Nartey accompanies her through the referral, keeps her informed at each step, and does not disappear once the paperwork is filed. Being told what will happen next is itself protective.
3. The family strand. Work with the mother through the guidance coordinator before the break, addressing the fear of beating and withdrawal from school directly. Where the home response is itself unsafe, social welfare involvement is part of the plan, not a betrayal of the family.
4. The school strand. Agree with Adjoa who at school knows, and keep it to that list. Arrange academic support for missed lessons so she is not punished academically for the disclosure, and manage the sports festival so that participation is her choice and does not require her to be visible in a way she finds unsafe.

Risks that could undo it

• Gossip. A single staffroom mention ends the counselling relationship and may end her schooling. Staff need a general reminder about confidentiality, not case details.
• Punitive family response. The most likely cause of dropout here; the re-entry arrangements the school operates should be explained to her and to her mother now, so that pregnancy or absence does not silently end her education.
• The 'rescuer' drift. Mr Nartey becoming her only ally is a risk to her and to him; he needs a referral network and a supervisor, and should not be handling this alone.
• The sports festival deadline. Institutional convenience is not a clinical consideration and must not set the timetable of the plan.

Review point. At two weeks the test is simple: is she safe, is she still attending, and does she still trust the counsellor enough to tell the truth?