INJURY TO A CHILD — CASE DISMISSED

Bexar County Injury to Child

False Allegations Based on Face Paint & Cold Symptoms

Texas Defenders | Bexar County

Case Overview

Texas Defenders represented a mother wrongfully accused of Injury to a Child after her 4-year-old's school reported suspected facial bruising. What the school interpreted as “bruising” was actually a butterfly face painting from a local festival the day before — paired with allergic shiners caused by a respiratory infection.

The child had been out sick on Monday and Tuesday. When she returned to school on Wednesday, staff contacted police and CPS claiming they observed possible facial injuries. What followed was an extremely stressful investigation over the Christmas holidays, during which the mother was even separated from her daughter due to a no-contact condition of bond.

Medical Evidence: No Bruising. No Abuse.

We immediately obtained the child's medical records from the Children's Hospital ER. The records clearly documented:

• No ecchymosis (no bruising) anywhere on the child's face

• A diagnosis of an upper respiratory infection

• Bilateral allergic shiners — common discoloration under the eyes caused by illness or allergies

• Photographs consistent with face paint, not trauma

These medical findings directly contradicted the initial report and became the foundation of our defense.

First Victory: Reuniting Mother & Daughter

Before we could even address the merits of the case, our first priority was lifting the no-contact order that had separated the mother and her 4-year-old daughter for 21 days.

We argued:

• The allegations were unsubstantiated and contradicted by medical professionals.

• CPS did not request removal of the child — the strongest indicator that abuse was NOT suspected.

• CPS already implemented a Safety Plan permitting supervised contact.

• Even in a CPS removal case, the law requires proof of immediate danger within 14 days — which was absent here.

Using CPS's own Safety Plan and the lack of evidence supporting danger, we secured the agreement of the State and the Court to lift the no-contact order and reunite mother and daughter.

Second Victory: Attacking the Merits

CPS completed its investigation and issued a “Ruled Out” finding.

“Ruled Out” means it was reasonable to conclude the alleged abuse or neglect did not occur.”

This matched the medical evidence showing no bruising and photographs consistent with face paint.

We presented:

• Medical records

• ER findings

• CPS's “Ruled Out” disposition

• Photographs reviewed by medical experts

• The Center for Miracles report confirming the injuries were not injuries

Outcome: Case Rejected Before Grand Jury

Once the prosecutor reviewed the full evidence and spoke with CPS, the State agreed the allegations were unfounded.

The prosecution wrote:

“CPS closed the case based on the medical reports from the Center for Miracles, and the photos were consistent with face paint. Therefore, I am closing the case and have sent the rejection to the judge.”

Case dismissed in full.

This case is a reminder that false assumptions — especially involving young children — can lead to devastating consequences. Swift investigation, aggressive advocacy, and reliance on objective medical science made all the difference.