The hotel room and the missing 15-year-old
You chair a multi-agency safeguarding meeting about Chloe, aged 15. In the last six weeks she has been reported missing three times. She was found twice in a hotel room with a 24-year-old man, Ryan, who is suspected of county lines involvement. No prosecution has been brought. Chloe has been excluded from school for three weeks for vaping in class. The school has not shared attendance data; health has not shared that she attended A&E twice with self-harm injuries; children's social care says she is 'not at immediate risk of significant harm' because she returns home. The hotel says it cannot refuse a paying guest and has no safeguarding policy. Ryan's phone is linked to two other missing children. The meeting has 12 minutes left. Partners are polite but defensive. The next meeting is in six weeks. You have no direct authority over any partner.
1. What are the immediate safeguarding risks, and what decisions must come out of today's meeting?
Read the worked answer
Chloe faces a cluster of risks: sexual exploitation or trafficking, missing episodes, self-harm, exclusion and an older male with suspected county lines links. The fact she returns home does not reduce the risk; it may show grooming or coercion. The meeting must not be a talking shop. I would seek agreement on a strategy discussion under safeguarding procedures, a police plan to locate and speak to Ryan, an NRM referral if the indicators meet the threshold, a health plan for the self-harm, a school reintegration plan, and a hotel safeguarding action through licensing or community safety. Each action needs a named owner and a date before the six-week meeting. I would record disagreements. I would also ask for an immediate missing-from-home protocol review because three episodes in six weeks is a pattern, not a repeat of a one-off. The reasoning is that the highest risks are exploitation and self-harm, and both need multi-agency action, not a single agency's reassurance.
2. How will you chair the meeting to overcome defensiveness and information hoarding? What can you say about data protection?
Read the worked answer
I would start with the child's voice and a clear risk statement, not a blame session. I would ask each agency one specific question: what do you hold, what have you done, what will you do, and by when? I would name the gaps I already know: school attendance, A&E self-harm, hotel policy, Ryan's links. I would challenge 'not at immediate risk' by asking what evidence supports that and what would change the assessment. On data protection, I would say that safeguarding is a lawful basis for sharing, that consent should be sought where possible but is not the only route, and that partners must share what is necessary and proportionate, not everything. I would offer to take legal advice if anyone is unsure, rather than let it become a reason to withhold. I would record decisions and dissent. The reasoning is that defensiveness often comes from fear of blame or legal uncertainty; clear questions and a shared record reduce both.
3. What escalation options do you have if partners do not deliver?
Read the worked answer
I would first use the meeting record: written actions, dates, and a follow-up letter to each agency's safeguarding lead. If actions are missed, I would escalate to my own senior officer and to the local safeguarding partnership chair, with evidence, not opinion. I would consider a formal partnership escalation meeting and, if the risk is immediate, a strategy discussion or police protection if the legal threshold is met. For the hotel, I would refer to licensing and community safety for a safeguarding review. I would keep the focus on Chloe and avoid threatening litigation. I would also check whether my own police actions are being delivered, because I cannot demand accountability from others without it. The reasoning is that escalation should be proportionate and evidence-based; the aim is to change behaviour and protect the child, not to win an inter-agency argument.