After leaving a journalist seriously injured in her home, a damaged and unstable actress must deal with the situation before meeting with her estranged daughter and Child Protective Services later that day.

I would consider just saying “unstable actress”. To me, “damaged” and “unstable” are almost synonymous and I think the point gets across.

I’m reading this as the actress has beaten up the journalist (I could be wrong and as the others have pointed out, it’s a bit ambiguous). If that’s the case, why would we root for her to get her daughter back? She’s unstable, damaged, and has violent tendencies. I don’t think any audience is going to want her daughter, an innocent, to end up under her care. Even if she didn’t beat up the journalist (and you should clarify what happened in the logline) she’s still characterised as damaged and unstable – hardly a winning combo for parenthood. I’m struggling to see how an audience could react favourably…

Is her ultimate goal to get her daughter back? If so then I would consider making the inciting incident the moment her daughter was taken away. The I.I. then directly relates to the goal – the character is trying to restore the balance she lost when her daughter was taken from her. There would be a clear arc from instability to stability and no parent would struggle to get behind someone who is trying to improve their life in order to get a child back. She can still beat up a journalist and it could still be part of the I.I. if you wanted, or it could be a road block on the way (act II climax?). This is more of a drama than a thriller and probably not the story you are trying to tell so apologies if this doesn’t help.

Why an actress by the way?

When social services take her daughter away, an emotionally unstable actress is given six months to regain control of her life and win her back.

Not the best by a long shot. “Regain control of her life” isn’t the most visual description but it’s a serving suggestion.