Response

PC 1 was given the call and reported that from the outset he was very concerned. ‘A’ had never been reported missing before and mum had searched unsuccessfully for five and a half hours.

He visited them home within five minutes of mums telephone call, and asked the eleven questions identified to feed the risk assessment and the nineteen considerations there were two reported outcomes.

1. Mum was very frightened and had not contemplated some of the possible outcomes and concerns, for example’ drug misuse, child sexual exploitation and self harm/suicide.  

2. PC 1 became aware that ‘A’ had met an older man on ‘Facebook’ from out of the area, thus the risks were great. In addition to this this was the first time ‘A’ had failed to return home or been reported missing.

‘A’ was considered ‘HIGH’ risk.

No search of address was undertaken at the child’s home 

PC 1 began the search by telephoning the number mum had found of the 23 year old man. Who seemed genuine stating he did not know ‘A’ was so young and that she had lied to him, he stated he had a baby daughter and didn’t want to be in any trouble. He informed PC1 that ‘A’ had telephoned him earlier from a different number, he gave PC 1 the number and PC1 was able to speak to the boy who owned the phone, he informed PC1 that ‘A’ had been in the area and gave him another number which he phoned he was led to an address in the local area.

PC1 attended a local address and found ‘A’ at 00.50 of 28th September 2011 sleeping, her fourteen year old male fried lived there. The parents were present and were under the impression that ‘A’ had been ‘thrown out’ by her mother.

PC1 Returned ‘A’ home where she was chastised by mum and spoken to in order to  debrief by PC1 this was recorded.
No child protection/child in need referral was undertaken as a result of this incident, at the time but the family has since been reported under section 17 Children Act ‘child in need’.

This episode was selected by date as a ‘red flagged’ episode of a child reported missing.

Compact and PID were looked at. 

Spoken to gain information and experience and process were;
• Mother
• Call handler
• Response Officer

This identified episode supports;

• Hypothesis 1 in that there was no coordinated follow up 
• Hypothesis 2 in that information relating to shoplifting, poor school attendance, wanting a baby and the alleged rape was not available to the responding officer
• Hypothesis 3 in that mum requested support and required suggested strategies for prevention.

'A' has not been reported as missing since.