A troubling case has emerged in Ohio, where a mother of four is in custody after her 2-year-old child was hospitalized for alleged drug exposure. The Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office reports that social workers at a children’s hospital contacted them about a 2-year-old being treated for exposure to or overdose from amphetamines.
According to deputies, 29-year-old Britney Culvin brought the child to a medical center in the Cambridge, Ohio area around 11 p.m. on April 27th. After stabilizing the child, they transferred them by medical helicopter to Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, approximately a 1.5-hour drive.
Disturbingly, Culvin did not follow her child to Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and officials couldn’t reach her despite her child being in critical condition. Deputies eventually located Culvin at an apartment complex in Byesville around 9:00 a.m. the following morning. She allowed deputies into her home, where they discovered her three other young children: a one-year-old and two one-month-old twins.
Law enforcement removed the children from the home due to its condition, the details of which remain undisclosed. However, given the reported incident with the 2-year-old, concerns are understandably high. Currently, all children are reportedly in the custody of child protective services.
Culvin was taken into custody and charged with felony child endangerment and tampering with evidence. Court records state, “Complainant, being duly sworn, states that Britney Nicole Culvin in Guernsey County, Ohio, on or about April 25th, 2024, through April 28th, 2024, unlawfully was a parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under 18 years of age, who did create a substantial risk to the health or safety of [child’s initials and date of birth]. She did this by violating a duty of care, protection, or support, in violation of the statute.”
The records further allege that Culvin, “on or about April 28th, 2024, unlawfully did, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation was in progress or was about to be or likely to be instituted, alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation, in violation of the statute.” This constitutes the tampering with evidence charge.
While the Sheriff’s Office press release and court documents don’t specify the drugs involved, or whether Culvin herself was using them, they did confirm that Culvin’s boyfriend was interviewed. It remains unclear if he was also arrested.
Culvin appeared in court for a bond hearing, and her bond was set at $250,000, with 10% required as collateral for her pre-trial release. As of the latest update, she remains incarcerated, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 6th.
To shed light on this disturbing case, we spoke with attorney and retired Ohio Judge Vahan Rucker.
Judge Rucker, thank you for joining us. This is a truly heartbreaking case. What are your thoughts?
Judge Rucker: “This is a deeply sad situation. Unfortunately, we see cases like this all too often, where young parents struggle with addiction and are ill-equipped to navigate life’s challenges. To be clear, we don’t have all the facts yet. We don’t know if addiction played a role, only that drugs were present. We don’t know if she was using them, or how the child gained access. It’s fair to suspect a connection, but we can’t be certain.”
“What makes these situations particularly tragic is that innocent children often become the victims of poor choices made by the adults in their lives. It’s harrowing to imagine what that child experienced, going through such an ordeal alone, surrounded by strangers, without their mother by their side. The fact that authorities couldn’t locate the mother while her child was in critical condition adds another layer of sadness to this story. The entire scene is heartbreaking.”
“It’s positive that the mother sought medical attention for the child, as many cases involve children being left to fend for themselves in such circumstances. Taking the child to get help was undeniably the right thing to do.”
“The fact that the child endangerment charges are based on the condition of the home raises concerns. As a prosecutor and judge, I witnessed numerous cases where the living conditions were deplorable, with clutter, infestations, lack of food, and drug paraphernalia present. While we haven’t seen photos in this case, the descriptions suggest similarly concerning circumstances. It’s crucial to remember that help is available, and people should never hesitate to reach out if they need support.”
“What were those conditions like?”
Judge Rucker: “Based on my experience, such cases often involve extremely cluttered homes, possible infestations, and drug paraphernalia within reach of children. While we lack specifics here, the complaint’s wording and typical charging practices suggest a similar scenario.”
“Let’s discuss the child endangerment charge. It seems to focus on creating an environment where such an incident could occur, rather than intentional harm.”
Judge Rucker: “That’s correct. The charge hinges on creating a substantial risk of physical harm. In some cases, no harm actually occurs, but the risk exists due to negligence, such as leaving a child unattended for extended periods or having dangerous conditions in the home. While this case involves both substantial risk and actual harm, which strengthens the prosecution’s case, it’s important to differentiate between creating a risk and intending to cause harm.”
Judge Rucker: “Each element of a charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defending against charges involving a helpless child is incredibly challenging. Was she the primary caregiver at the time? Was someone else tasked with the child’s care? Was she in the process of addressing the home’s condition? We don’t have all the answers yet.”
“It appears she’s currently facing one count. Is there a chance for multiple child endangerment charges related to the other children?”
Judge Rucker: “Yes, she could face charges for each child potentially harmed. Even if they aren’t her biological children, anyone acting as a caregiver or in loco parentis can be held accountable for the well-being of children under their care.”
“Let’s address the tampering with evidence charge. It seems to go beyond not being present at the hospital.”
Judge Rucker: “Her absence while the child was critically ill, coupled with the authorities’ inability to locate her, suggests a possible attempt to dispose of evidence, potentially the drugs themselves or other incriminating items. The tampering charge implies an active effort to obstruct the investigation.”
“My understanding is that these are third-degree felonies, carrying a potential sentence of 9 months to 3 years. Is that accurate?”
Judge Rucker: “Yes, that’s correct. In Ohio, fourth and fifth-degree felonies are considered lower-level felonies, with a presumption of probation or community control. However, third-degree felonies can lead to significant incarceration time, even for first-time offenders.”
“In your experience, are plea deals common in such cases, and what might they entail?”
Judge Rucker: “Plea deals are always a possibility in legal proceedings. The defense acknowledges the risk of a jury trial, while the prosecution recognizes that even with a strong case, unforeseen circumstances can occur. Plea deals often reflect a balance of risks and potential outcomes.”
“In this instance, a plea deal wouldn’t be surprising. Once the evidence is fully understood, both sides can assess their positions and negotiate a resolution. Factors such as the defendant’s prior history, the severity of the child’s condition, and the nature of the evidence will likely influence the outcome.”
“Based on the limited information available, do you believe prison is an appropriate consequence for the mother?”
Judge Rucker: “It’s premature to make a definitive judgment without knowing all the facts, especially her prior history. A first-time offender with no prior charges who experienced a difficult period in their life might be a candidate for rehabilitation and support rather than incarceration. However, a history of similar offenses would paint a different picture.”
“The most pressing concern is the child’s recovery. Sadly, if the child’s condition deteriorates, the charges could be upgraded. Let’s hope for the best outcome for all the children involved.”
Judge Rucker: “Thank you for your insightful perspective on this disturbing case.”
This case serves as a stark reminder that children are among the most vulnerable members of our society and that their well-being should be paramount. As this case progresses, we can only hope for a just outcome and that all the children involved receive the care and support they need.
