This article from the Guardian describes the concerns of care experts in the UK regarding what some consider overuse of "'risk of emotional harm' as a reason for applying to a court for a care order before any harm has happened."
“'Many parents who have been subject to child protection investigations say that emotional harm is just social workers trying to look into crystal balls, and children shouldn’t be taken away when parents haven’t actually done them any harm,' said Sarah Phillimore, a family barrister who acts for parents, children and local authorities in care cases. 'Others say however that we can’t just leave children in dangerous situations until they suffer actual harm and they need to be removed once the level of risk is serious.'”
Furthermore, research conducted by Andy Bilson, emeritus professor of social work at the University of Central Lancashire, indicates that care orders due to risk of emotional abuse are dependent largely on where the families live. "In 60 English local authorities," according to Bilson's research, "the rate at which parents were found to have emotionally harmed their child – or were said to pose a risk – more than tripled in the six years to 2017. In these local authorities there was a larger increase in children going into care than in areas where there was a smaller rise or a fall in findings of emotional abuse."
“The differences in intervention rates suggest differences in culture and practice. I think what you’ve got in those 60 local authorities is a big move to rescue children from parents. And I don’t think that they necessarily all need rescuing," said Bilson.
Sarah Phillimore is convening a conference to discuss the issue and "explore whether 'risk of emotional harm' can be justified as a reason for the state to intervene so drastically in family life."