nd lunchtime arrangements. The girl was able to suggest how she would feel safest at lunchtime. At the end of the second day, another girl went to the designated safeguarding lead (DSL) and made a report about the same boy. She reported that he had sexually assaulted her in school three weeks before. The school submitted a MARF for the girl and a second MARF for the boy. The school knew the police were involved and that a MERLIN (a crime report involving a child) had been submitted, but they knew the police would not have the ongoing and detailed information held by the school about the boy. The school did not want either girl further distressed by possibly seeing the boy around school. The option choices and group sizes for the three children meant it was very difficult to educate separately. The school contacted another secondary school. The school links had been established as part of the In Year Fair Access Process (IYFAP) and made immediate arrangements for the boy to move to the other school so that his education was not disrupted. The boy remained at the new school for the duration of the investigation. The DSLs from both schools worked together with police and the children and ensured appropriate child protection information was shared so the receiving school was fully aware of the allegations. The boy received a caution, and the decision was made for him to remain at his new school where he engaged with a personalised RSHE plan. Parents were involved throughout. The children were at the centre of decision-making, often suggesting how they could be supported. Unsubstantiated, unfounded, false or malicious reports 532. As set out in paragraph 66 of Part one of this guidance, all concerns, discussions and decisions made, and the reasons for those decisions, should