The term “disguised compliance” is commonly used by professionals to describe parents who have given the impression that they are willing to cooperate and work with services but fail to do so, or fail to engage in a meaningful way. Parents may agree to actions in order to avoid raising suspicion and allay any professional concerns. Case review highlights the importance of establishing facts and gaining evidence about what is actually happening, rather than accepting parent’s presenting behaviour and assertions. Focusing on the outcomes for the children prevents delay of intervention.

What is the impact of disguised compliance?

Disguised compliance, also known as apparent cooperation or partial parental cooperation, can impact on a professional’s engagement with families and children. The behaviour undermines the work of professionals and impacts on the outcomes for children.

Where parents have been able to disguise their compliance it may lead to a reduction or downgrading in concern on the part of professionals. This can allow cases to drift and loses the opportunity to make timely interventions. Professionals may be overly optimistic about progress being achieved, again this may delay interventions.

How might disguised compliance present?

• A sudden increase in school attendance, especially at threat of action.
• Attending a run of appointments.
• Repeatedly cancelling and rescheduling appointments with a range of reasons such as clashes of other events/appointments.
• Engaging with professionals for a limited period of time. Or good engagement with one service to deflect lack of engagement with other services.
• Cleaning the house before a pre-arranged professional visit and not answering the door for unannounced visits. Removing traces of other adults in the home.
• Lack of change at reviews despite significant input from professionals.
• Parents agreeing to make changes but showing no effort to do so.
• Children’s account differ to those given by the adults’.
• Attendance at programmes with no evidence of learning or changes in behaviour.
• Attending programmes and support with no acceptance of their need to change and no intention of changing behaviour.
• Agreeing to take up services offered but not attending or are avoidant, and failure to report non-attendance, or falsely claiming attendance.
• Criticising or making complaints about other professionals to divert attention away from their own behaviour.
• Parents manipulating situations and make it difficult for professionals to be able to see and speak to the child/ren alone.
• Parents seek to control meetings and divert focus from the child to their own issues.

Questions for professionals to ask themselves

• Are my assessments based on facts and gathered evidence rather than excuses or parental assertions and reassurances? Are parents telling me what I want to hear?
• Are there clear outcomes to measure progress against?
• Is there evidence of changes in behaviour?
• Is there evidence that disproves initial judgements? Has this been taken into account?
• Is there a comprehensive chronology that evidences past parenting experiences/history?
• Have I recorded the child’s perspective and lived experience? Not just the adult’s participation and parenting capacity.
• Have I focused on outcomes rather than process?
• Is change sustained or sustainable?
• Is there enough change? Are parents doing “just enough” to prevent further concern?
• Have I spoken to other professionals? What are their experiences of the family?
• Have I assessed parent’s willingness and capacity to change?

Manager’s responsibilities

High quality supervision is key to support workers to have a critical mind set, and work in a reflective way when working with families. Supervision gives opportunity for another professional to give their perspective and question any assumptions that have been made. Supervision will help identify where professionals may be over optimistic. It should also support challenge to professionals’ beliefs about apparent changes and to seek evidence of actual progress. It is also an opportunity to look at how any non-engagement has been viewed as parental choice rather than non-compliance.

Supervision should also help to identify new or changing evidence that means judgements or assessments need to be revised.

Where it is felt that there is disguised compliance this must be critically examined. Parents may be resistant due to lack of understanding, time/financial constraints, feeling judged or other reasons. They may be resistant or avoidant but

Supervision should also be used to consider is there is anything the professional may be doing to increase parent’s resistance.

The impact on the child

Disguised compliance impacts on the relationship the professional is able to have with the family and the child/ren. This may mean that professionals are unable to assess the ricks to the children in the home.

In cases of disguised compliance it may remove the focus of the professionals from the child/ren. It may mean there is a focus on the adults and their engagement with services rather than on achieving safer outcomes for children.

Delayed interventions may leave children at risk, particularly babies and very young children.

Children may be used by parents in the disguised compliance and may be told what to say to professionals. The impact on them of telling you something they have been told not to should be considered.

Remember that when a child missing an appointment it should be recorded as “child was not brought” rather than “did not attend” as that implies it was their choice to miss it. Consider what missing appointments, especially health appointments, has for the child.

What to do?

Think about the relationship you are building with parents and how you approach them to try and lowering resistance.

• Avoid direct head on arguments about the behaviour that you would like to change?
• Show the parent you understand what they are saying and what life is like for them and their child. Use reflective listening skills and demonstrate empathy.
• Talk in a non-confrontational way about any discrepancy you notice between what the parent says about the plan and what you understand to be their wider goals or objectives.
• Encourage the parent to come up with possible solutions or alternative behaviours themselves rather than advising or directing them.

Impact on practice

Professionals need to consider other factors that impact a parent’s behaviour or engagement with support services. There will be cases where parents are not engaged but it is not due to desire to hide the harm that's occurring. Consider:

• What was the parent’s experience of being parented?
• Does the parent fully understand the concerns and what is being asked of them and why?
• Is there evidence of poor relationships with services previously i.e. being let down or complaints made?
• What influence does their “support network” have?
• Are they a victim of exploitation or abuse?
• Do parents understand what the service is offering and that they are not a threat?
• Do parents have the capacity to make changes?

Multi agency collaboration

Professionals must be alert how parents may seek to deceive them but also how they use professionals against each other. Professionals need to talk about their experiences with the family and build a fuller picture of what life is like for the child/ren.

This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Kent and Medway Safeguarding Procedures and the MSCP factsheet “Professional Curiosity”. Developed in reference to NSPCC “Disguised compliance: learning from case reviews”, and resources on Community Care.