This paper presents a comparative analysis of the availability of pre-birth protection orders in cases of imminent harm to the unborn child due to high-risk parenting in the Netherlands and other Western countries. Using a standardised questionnaire sent to legal experts in 14 countries, the study evaluates the legal frameworks for such orders. Findings indicate that in most countries, pre-birth protection orders are unavailable, though some offer voluntary pre-birth protection proceedings or only prenatal care and support. Pre-birth protection orders are legally available in New Zealand and Norway. However, unlike the Netherlands, these countries have specific legislation allowing such orders, and pre-birth protection orders are rarely used. The study highlights the ethical and legal challenges of mandatory protection measures, emphasising the need for a balanced approach that respects the rights of both the mother and the unborn child. Recommendations include improving the accessibility and quality of voluntary care, and if pre-birth protection orders are available, this needs an explicit legal basis since this implies an infringement of the fundamental rights of women. This research provides a comparative legal analysis, underscoring the necessity for ongoing evaluation of these measures' effectiveness and ethical implications.