Recent research has highlighted the increasing trends in newborn and very young children entering child welfare processes and care proceedings in a number of countries. Furthermore, differential responses to risk within young families across different geographical locations and communities in the same child protection system have been found. Safe care arrangements for newborn babies may include placement with kinship carers or with foster carers not previously known to the family. The distinctive needs of the increasing population of infants in the care system are only beginning to be fully recognized. The short-and long-term impact of contested infant removals on birth mothers has been powerfully highlighted, although the impact on fathers remains under-reported. There has been limited research evidence available on how decisions about the care arrangements for newborn babies are reached. In this paper, the author draws on data from an ethnographic study of pre-birth child protection in order to explore how social workers understand and frame risk to infants when assessing families during pregnancy. Data from interviews with practitioners reveal the extent to which their conceptualizations of and anxiety about risks to unborn babies shape plans for the future care of infants. K E Y W O R D S child protection, infant removal, unborn babies 1 | INTRODUCTION This paper reports findings from an ethnographic study of pre-birth child protection work. The research took place within an urban Scottish setting and focused on the activities of social work practitioners and their interactions with expectant parents. Unborn babies lack legal personhood in Scotland, meaning any legal action must wait until the baby has been born. However, child protection processes may be initiated during the pregnancy, thereby providing a forum for important decisions about the future care of the baby. The choices made by parents during the pregnancy may also be taken into account in the grounds for any legal steps later enacted. Increasing numbers of newborn babies and infants find themselves subject to care proceedings and separation from birth family in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2019; Woods & Henderson, 2018), a trend that has been noted in other countries with child protection systems focusing on immediate risk (Broadhurst et al.,

This article reports findings from an ethnographic study of pre-birth child protection, conducted in an urban Scottish setting. The study was designed to explore the interactions between practitioners and families in the context of child protection involvement during a pregnancy. This research aimed to understand the activities that constituted pre-birth child protection assessment, and the meaning attached to those activities by social workers and expectant parents. Very different perspectives on fathers and fatherhood emerged through the study. Fathers shared their feelings of familial tenderness in the context of research interviews. Yet social workers often focused on the risks that the fathers posed. This focus on risk led professionals to ignore or exclude fathers in significant ways. Fathers were denied opportunities to take an active role in their families and care planning for their infants, whilst mothers were over-responsibilised. Children meanwhile were potentially denied the relationship, care and identity benefits of involved fatherhood. This article shows how pre-birth child protection processes and practice can function so as to limit the contribution of expectant fathers. The way that fathers and fathering are understood continues to be a wider problem for social work, requiring development through research and practice. This study was not immune to the challenge of involving men in social work research in meaningful ways. Nevertheless, the findings highlight how participation in social work research can create a forum for fathers to share their concerns, and the importance of their perspective for practice.

Ariane's contribution to this collection draws on her doctoral study of child protection involvement with unborn babies. Her thesis Quickening Steps: An ethnography of pre-birth child protection was submitted to the University of Edinburgh for examination in 2018. Ariane is employed as a social work lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University. Families' experiences of pre-birth child protection

This article charts changes and continuities in the social work role in adoption since 1968. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 established the Children’s Hearing System, Scotland’s unique approach to child welfare in which lay volunteers make decisions on compulsory intervention relating to children. Although the Act was not intended to reform adoption practice, it has had two major impacts. First, as adoption moved from ‘relinquishment’ to more complex and contested legal routes, the Children’s Hearing came to occupy an integral role in decision-making for children in need of care and protection. Secondly, since 1968, adoption has become understood as a resource for children who are unable to remain within their birth family or kinship networks. Using documentary analysis of adoption files and interviews with key informants, the research focused on three key periods: 1968, 1988 and 2014. The study found that fragmentation of the social work role has decreased the potential of adoption records to be a resource for adopted individuals curious about their origins and story. Paradoxically, over this period, there has been growing understanding of the identity needs of adopted people. Such unintended consequences suggest the need for more a thoughtful approach to adoption record keeping.

In recent years, tackling Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) has become a central dimension of early years, education, youth and family policy. In this Scottish Affairs special issue, we discuss why this public policy has galvanized so much attention in Scotland, and the possible consequence its popularity might have in theory, policy and practice. How, for example, has ACE research shaped how policy is responding to poverty and social inequality? What moral judgements are made by the ACE-agenda, and how might it obscure alternative ways of thinking about the problem of adversity, and cultivating lasting solutions. With contributions from academics and practitioners across different disciplines and practice settings, the collection points to an ongoing need for critical engagement in ACE-policy, and a greater commitment to understanding how ACE-policy is being translated into different practice settings. While theoretical debates are important, future research must prioritise the experiences of practitioners, and those with lived experience of adversity.