No.16: Disguised compliance

What is ‘disguised compliance’?

‘Disguised compliance’ is a term used to describe when a parent or carer gives the appearance of cooperation with agencies to avoid raising suspicion, to allay professional concerns and ultimately to weaken professional intervention.

Babies and very young children are at particular risk from a lack of timely intervention due to disguised compliance

Risk factors of disguised compliance

missing opportunities to make interventions: a reduction or downgrading in concern on the part of professionals can allow cases to drift, so losing the opportunity to make timely interventions.
removes focus from children: disguised compliance can lead to a focus on adults and their engagement with services, rather than on achieving safer outcomes for children.
over optimism about progress: professionals can become over optimistic about progress being achieved, again delaying timely interventions.

What might it look like?

a sudden increase in school attendance
attendance at appointments with a range of agencies
parents may focus on one particular issue, deflecting attention away from other areas
selective engagement with professionals, such as school staff or health visitor
cleaning the house before a pre-arranged visit from a professional
encouraging disengagement of a parent or carer.
children’s account of an incident/lived experience differs from that of their parents/carers.
parents/carers appearing critical of professionals
parents telling professionals ‘What they want to hear’
selective engagement, where ‘just enough’ is done to keep professionals at bay
controlling discussions, ensuring the focus is on the parents and their problems.

When does it occur and what is the impact?

It occurs when a parent/carer wants to deflect attention away from allegations of harm. It can lead to:

professionals not understanding the severity of harm being experienced by the child
the focus is taken away from the child, who can go unseen and unheard
case drift
risks to the child may remain/increase
cases may be closed early

What can you do?

constantly question all assumptions and maintain ‘respectful uncertainly’
bring in a fresh pair of eyes/talk to other professionals
adopt an approach of ‘healthy scepticism’
establish facts and gather evidence
keep detailed records and build up a chronology
ensure all those with parental responsibility are informed/involved
ensure there are clear plans with responsibilities and timescales identified
identify outcomes

All disguised compliance involves resistance to change and an inability or unwillingness on the part of parents and carers to address risks to their child. Assessments of the parent’s capacity and willingness to change should therefore be carried out alongside assessments of the child’s life.

Case study: Daniel Pelka

Daniel was a 4-year-old boy who spoke no English. The school he attended spoke to his mother about his apparent obsession with food and the fact that he was taking food from other children’s lunch boxes. She told the school that he must not be allowed to eat more than what was in his own lunch box because he had a ‘medical problem’. Staff believed his mother when she said this was being investigated. She continued to ‘work with’ the deputy Head Teacher and Daniel’s school attendance improved. A string of injuries which were observed by a range of school staff were not recorded. The school used Daniel’s sister to speak to him but he refused to say how he had got the injuries.

When Daniel died, he weighed a little over a stone and a half – the average weight of an 18-month-old baby. Teaching Assistant AT broke down in tears in court, when she said he wanted to eat ‘muddy and dirty’ pancakes which had been on the floor. Daniel’s mother claimed he was being treated for a rare eating disorder and school staff were not to feed him. They complied with her instructions. The family also had contact with social workers, doctors, health visitors and police. Education officials investigated Daniel’s poor school attendance and health visitors went to the home but never saw him.

What were the indicators of disguised compliance? Think about what the school could have done differently and what you would do if faced with a similar situation.