skip to main content

Sexual abuse of a 16- or 17-year-old by an adult sports coach in a position of trust — DFSRH MCQ

Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.

EasyChild ProtectionSexual abuse of a 16- or 17-year-old by an adult sports coach in a position of trustDFSRH

A 16-year-and-8-month-old girl attends a sexual and reproductive health clinic in England requesting continuation of combined oral contraception. She has capacity and describes sexual activity with her 24-year-old athletics coach, who has trained her individually every week for 2 years. The sexual relationship began 3 months ago. She denies physical violence but says he warned that disclosure could jeopardise her place in the squad. She asks the clinician not to tell anyone. Which is the most appropriate management?

Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.

Reveal the answer and explanation

Correct answer: E — Provide contraception if clinically appropriate, explain the limits of confidentiality, and make a prompt referral to local authority children’s social care with police involvement through local procedures

Explanation lettering: C = shown as A · A = shown as B · B = shown as C

Although she is above the general age of consent and has decision-making capacity, she remains a child for safeguarding purposes. Her adult coach regularly trains her in a sport and therefore occupies a legally recognised position of trust. The threatened loss of her squad place additionally demonstrates exploitation of his professional power. Her description of the activity as consensual does not remove the safeguarding concern. The clinician should continue clinically appropriate contraceptive care rather than making healthcare conditional on cooperation with safeguarding action. The clinician should explain what information must be shared and why, involve her in the process where safe, document the disclosure accurately, and refer promptly to local authority children’s social care; police involvement should follow the local multi-agency pathway. A incorrectly treats capacity and the general age of consent as removing position-of-trust protection. B recognises the coach’s organisational role but notification to a club safeguarding lead cannot replace referral to statutory agencies. C incorrectly makes necessary safeguarding information-sharing dependent on consent: consent is not required where sharing is necessary and proportionate to protect a child. D is incorrect because parental notification is not an automatic prerequisite and could increase risk or compromise safeguarding enquiries. E combines uninterrupted clinical care with transparent, proportionate information-sharing and prompt statutory safeguarding action.

Reference: Positions of trust: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 factsheet (Updated 20 August 2022) — https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-positions-of-trust-factsheet Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Updated 18 March 2026) — https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69fb1c28d0e316a40f269a5b/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_2026_a_guide_to_multi_agency_working.pdf Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services (May 2024) — https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66320b06c084007696fca731/Info_sharing_advice_content_May_2024.pdf