It sounds like she's defending herself. She doesn't wipe away tears until she says "there ain't no reason for me to do something crazy because I can have my daughter whenever I want too". It seems like it's a defense of me, me, me.
Maybe this is an unfair characterization and I'm jaded with so many cases of precious children that are neglected.
I've just listened to the clip and made a hand-written transcript. On first glance I don't see anything to suggest she had anything to do with it.
My own personal analysis of it, for whatever it's worth.
The first question is to ask how she, N, is feeling. The answer N gives is to say she's feeling....lost.
That suggests she considers the baby lost.
When N says it's not a custody battle she shakes her head (no). That suggests she believes what she's saying.
N uses Charlee's name in one place, in other places she says "my daughter". I don't see a flag there.
The interviewer is asking a lot of very directed and leading questions and the interviewer fails to ask anything about Charlee, which is a shame imho. So the concern for Charlee doesn't come out as the priority for N, which would normally be a flag. But after the interviewer asks a question related to the support of the community, N gets emotional and in that answer she does show what I would consider concern for Charlee, she shows informed fear that after 24 hours her daughter might be dead, but she has trouble using the word 'dead' and instead hesitates before she gets out that in a lot of cases after 24 hours "it's a death". I don't consider that an admission, and we know it's not an admission as Charlee was found alive.
That's all my own work., my own analysis and opinions in that and in this conclusion. I'm no expert in statement analysis, I am just developing an interest in it. There might be other things in there that might indicate concern, but I am not skilled enough to pick them out. But in the main question of was the mother involved, my opinion would be, no.
