This article explores how risk, moralisation and class intertwine in prevention work targeting parents. The analysis is based on an ethnographic study at three Danish schools, from which two exemplary cases have been selected, consisting of observations of two introductory consultations between families and school health nurses. We focus on how the professional assesses whether a family is at risk. The outcome of the consultations is distinctly different. The privileged family is able to display the legitimate risk practices. In contrast, the disadvantaged family is regarded as irresponsible and at risk. This is not so much due to the complexity of their social situation, but because of what the professional identifies as a major risk: the child’s overweight. Our methodological approach is to explore how the consultations are framed. Our analysis reveals how a focus on ‘lifestyle choices’ results in dismissing the structural conditions that shape not only the hazards facing families, but also their risk practices. Consequently, the privileged parents are celebrated as morally worthwhile, while the disadvantaged parents are judged to be of less moral value. This, we argue, is grounded in symbolic class distinctions, revitalising ‘respectability’ as a central aspect of the discretionary assessment.

本文探讨了针对父母的预防工作中的风险，道德和班级如何交织在一起。该分析基于对三所丹麦学校的人种学研究，从中选择了两个案例，其中包括对家庭和学校卫生护士之间的两次介绍性咨询的观察。我们专注于专业人员如何评估家庭是否处于危险之中。磋商的结果明显不同。特权家庭能够展示合法的风险行为。相反，处境不利的家庭被认为是不负责任和有风险的。这并不是由于他们的社会状况的复杂性，而是因为专业人员认为主要风险：儿童的超重。我们的方法论方法是探讨协商的框架。我们的分析揭示了对“生活方式选择”的关注如何导致消除不仅影响家庭面临的危险，而且影响其风险实践的结构性条件。因此，享有特权的父母在道德上值得拥有，而处境不利的父母则被认为具有较低的道德价值。我们认为，这是基于象征性的阶级区别，使“尊敬性”恢复为自由裁量评估的核心内容。