The death of a nine-year-old girl in Paulsboro, New Jersey, has led to a major criminal investigation after authorities said the injuries she suffered were inconsistent with the explanation initially provided by her mother and stepfather. The investigation has since expanded to include allegations of prolonged physical abuse and a separate inquiry into possible sexual abuse.

India L. Miller, 27, the girl’s mother, and Sean D. Scott, 45, her stepfather, have been charged in connection with the child’s death. Prosecutors allege that the couple attempted to explain the girl’s condition by claiming she may have been struck by a vehicle while walking the family dog. Investigators later reported that surveillance footage did not show a vehicle passing through the area during the period described.

The child, identified in media reports as Maya Thomas, died on October 13, 2026, after being taken to a hospital. An autopsy documented multiple serious injuries, some in different stages of healing, leading medical examiners to determine that her death resulted from multiple blunt-force injuries and was a homicide.

Authorities have also confirmed that New Jersey’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency is investigating allegations of physical and sexual abuse. Those allegations remain under investigation, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The case has drawn widespread attention in the community, raising urgent questions about what happened inside the family’s home, how the initial account was evaluated and whether warning signs of possible abuse had gone unnoticed.

The early-morning emergency call
According to the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office, police were called to a home in Paulsboro at approximately 1:10 a.m. on October 13 after receiving a report that a child was not breathing.

Miller and Scott reportedly told responding authorities that the girl had been outside walking the dog and might have been struck by a vehicle. Their account described a possible hit-and-run incident near the property.

Miller reportedly said she heard a loud sound resembling tires screeching. Scott said he went outside and found the child near a shed.

At first, officers had to consider whether a vehicle collision had occurred. A child found seriously injured outside a home could have been the victim of a traffic incident, and investigators needed to determine whether a driver had struck her and left the scene.

The girl was taken to a local hospital for emergency treatment. Medical personnel, however, observed facial trauma, widespread bruising and other injuries that they said were not consistent with a vehicle crash.

The child’s condition raised immediate concerns that something other than a traffic collision might have caused her injuries.

She was pronounced dead later that day, at approximately 6:42 p.m., according to the prosecutor’s office.

Her death prompted a homicide investigation involving local police, county investigators and medical examiners.

Investigators search for a vehicle that may never have been there
After hearing the family’s account, officers began looking for evidence that could confirm whether a vehicle had struck the girl.

Investigators examined the surrounding area and sought surveillance recordings from nearby public buildings. According to reporting by The Philadelphia Inquirer, police reviewed dispatch records and worked to obtain footage from a nearby school and firehouse.

The search was initially directed toward locating a vehicle that might have sustained damage in a collision. Officers also sought recordings that could reveal whether a car had travelled through the area during the reported time.

Authorities eventually determined that the available surveillance footage did not show vehicle traffic in the area during the timeframe described by the adults.

That finding was significant because it weakened the explanation that a passing vehicle had caused the girl’s injuries. It did not, on its own, explain how she had been hurt, but it gave investigators a reason to examine the circumstances inside the home more closely.

The investigation began to shift from a possible hit-and-run toward the possibility that the child had been harmed before emergency services were called.

The case demonstrates the importance of testing an initial account against independent evidence. Investigators did not rely solely on what the adults said had happened; they compared the account with video recordings, medical findings and statements obtained during the inquiry.

A younger sibling provides investigators with additional information
Another important development came from an interview with the girl’s four-year-old sibling.

According to the criminal allegations outlined by prosecutors, the younger child told investigators that Scott had struck the girl in the face and around her eyes.

The statement became part of the evidence cited in the case against the adults.

Because the account came from a very young child, its precise meaning and reliability must be considered within the investigative and legal process. Authorities must assess statements alongside other evidence rather than treat any single account as conclusive.

In this investigation, the statement was considered alongside the medical findings, surveillance footage and evidence recovered from the home.

The younger sibling was subsequently placed in protective care, according to reporting about the case. Child-protection authorities also began examining allegations concerning the children’s safety and the possibility of a broader pattern of abuse.

The sibling’s account added another dimension to the investigation: authorities were no longer looking only at what caused the girl’s fatal injuries, but also at whether other acts of violence had occurred in the household.

Evidence recovered inside the home
Investigators obtained a warrant to search the family’s residence. According to the prosecutor’s office, they found wet children’s clothing with suspected blood in an upstairs bathroom bathtub.

Authorities also reported suspected blood on bathroom tiles, a Swiffer WetJet and other cleaning supplies.

These findings became part of the criminal allegations against Miller and Scott. Investigators were examining whether the clothing and cleaning materials were connected to the child’s injuries and whether anyone had attempted to clean areas of the home before or during the emergency response.

The presence of suspected blood does not, by itself, establish who caused an injury or why the material was present. Such evidence must be interpreted through forensic testing and the wider circumstances of the case.

Nevertheless, the reported findings raised additional questions about what had happened before officers arrived and whether the original account accurately described the events.

Investigators also reported that the house was in disarray and that smoke detectors had been disconnected, with batteries removed. Authorities included those observations in the information used to support the case.

The home search, combined with the medical findings and surveillance review, helped prosecutors build their account of the events surrounding the girl’s death.

The autopsy reveals injuries in different stages of healing
The medical examiner’s findings became central to the investigation.

According to the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office, the autopsy documented numerous injuries across the child’s body. These included blunt-force trauma to her face, severe swelling around her eyes, multiple broken ribs and a ruptured colon.

Medical examiners also observed abrasions on her inner thighs and intimate areas. Officials reported that some of the injuries were in different stages of healing, a finding they said suggested prolonged abuse rather than a single recent incident.

The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was multiple blunt-force injuries and classified the manner of death as homicide.

These findings were inconsistent with the explanation that the girl had simply been struck by a passing vehicle, according to the authorities’ account.

The injuries in different stages of healing also led investigators to consider whether the child had suffered harm over an extended period. That question is now part of the broader child-protection investigation.

The autopsy findings are evidence cited by prosecutors, but questions about responsibility for particular injuries and the circumstances in which they occurred must be resolved through the legal process.

A separate investigation examines possible sexual abuse
The case expanded further after officials confirmed that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency was investigating allegations of both physical and sexual abuse.

According to reporting by NJ.com cited in the NY Post article, hospital staff observed injuries to the girl’s vaginal area. The autopsy also documented abrasions involving her inner thighs and intimate areas.

Those findings prompted questions beyond the immediate cause of death and became part of the information being reviewed by child-protection authorities.

The agency was reportedly alerted to the allegations after the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office contacted the state’s child-abuse hotline on October 13.

The sexual-abuse inquiry is separate from the criminal charges announced in connection with the child’s death. As of the reporting available on October 23, 2026, the publicly announced charges against Miller and Scott include murder, child endangerment, making a fictitious report to police and hindering prosecution. The official charging announcement does not list a separate sexual-abuse charge.

That distinction matters. The existence of an investigation does not establish that sexual abuse occurred or determine who, if anyone, was responsible. Investigators must evaluate medical evidence, interviews and any other relevant information before deciding whether additional charges are warranted.

Authorities have not publicly established all the circumstances surrounding the reported injuries. Until the investigation produces verified findings, claims about the alleged sexual abuse should be described as allegations under examination rather than proven facts.

The grandmother describes a child who had been part of her life for years
The case has also brought attention to the girl’s family history and her relationships with relatives.

Her maternal grandmother, Lynn Miller, told NJ.com that she had helped raise Maya from the time the child was approximately 18 months old until she was seven. The grandmother said she cared for the girl in Las Vegas before Maya moved to New Jersey to live with her mother and stepfather.

She also said that contact with her daughter and granddaughter had become limited in the years before the child’s death.

The grandmother described Maya as a happy, carefree child and expressed grief over the circumstances of her death.

In comments reported by NJ.com, she alleged that Maya had been homeschooled because the adults did not want other people to see bruises. That is a claim attributed to the grandmother, not a finding established by the prosecutor’s office in its public charging announcement.

The family’s account has raised questions about the child’s daily life and whether other people had opportunities to observe signs of injury. However, the available public information does not establish that a particular person or institution knew of abuse before the fatal incident.

Investigators may examine those questions as part of the broader inquiry into the child’s welfare.

The grandmother’s remarks also underscore the distance that can develop between relatives and a child when contact is limited. For families facing an unexpected tragedy, the absence of clear information can add to the grief and uncertainty surrounding what happened.

The mother and stepfather face multiple criminal charges
On October 15, Gloucester County Prosecutor Andrew B. Johns announced charges against Miller and Scott.

Both defendants face first-degree murder and first-degree accomplice-to-murder charges, as well as two counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, a fourth-degree charge of making a fictitious report to police and a fourth-degree charge of hindering prosecution.

The charges reflect prosecutors’ allegations that the adults were responsible for the child’s death and that their account of a possible vehicle collision was false.

Both were being held at Salem County Jail, according to the prosecutor’s announcement.

The potential penalties are severe. The prosecutor’s office stated that the maximum term of incarceration could be life in prison if the defendants are convicted.

However, a criminal complaint is an allegation, not a verdict. The prosecution must establish the elements of each charge through admissible evidence, and the defense has the right to challenge the state’s account.

The charges against each defendant must also be evaluated individually. Being accused alongside another person does not automatically establish identical responsibility for every alleged act.

As the proceedings continue, evidence from the autopsy, home search, surveillance recordings and witness interviews is expected to remain important to the case.

The younger child is placed in protective care
The death has also triggered urgent concern for the surviving four-year-old sibling.

State child-protection officials confirmed that the younger child had been placed in protective care following the incident. Authorities have not publicly released all details of the child’s placement or the continuing safety assessment, citing the sensitive nature of child-protection matters.

The agency’s work is distinct from the criminal investigation. While prosecutors seek to establish whether crimes occurred and who may be responsible, child-protection officials assess safety risks and determine what steps are necessary to protect children.

That assessment may include reviewing the family’s circumstances, interviewing relevant people and considering whether there were previous indications of possible harm.

The public record available so far does not provide a complete account of the child-protection agency’s findings. Nor does it establish what the younger sibling may have witnessed beyond the statement cited in the criminal allegations.

The child’s welfare remains an important concern as investigators continue examining the circumstances surrounding Maya’s death.

A community struggles to understand the tragedy
The allegations have shaken Paulsboro, a community in Gloucester County in southern New Jersey.

Mayor John Giovannitti described the case as an exceptionally distressing crime for the town and expressed gratitude to the authorities involved in the investigation. Local officials and school representatives also acknowledged that the loss of a child affects the wider community, even when the child was not enrolled in the local public-school system.

The case has raised difficult questions about child safety, family violence and how warning signs may be identified. It has also prompted renewed attention to the responsibilities of investigators and child-protection agencies when evidence suggests that a child may have experienced harm over time.

Those questions deserve careful examination, but conclusions about missed warnings or institutional failures should be based on documented evidence rather than assumptions.

The ongoing investigation may establish more about the family’s circumstances, the nature of the alleged abuse and whether any additional criminal charges are appropriate.

For now, the clearest publicly confirmed facts are that Maya died from multiple blunt-force injuries, that authorities classified her death as a homicide, and that her mother and stepfather have been charged in connection with the case.

What happens next in the investigation?
Several issues remain to be addressed through the legal and child-protection processes.

First, prosecutors must present evidence supporting the murder and related charges against Miller and Scott. The defense will have the opportunity to challenge that evidence and present its own arguments.

Second, investigators will continue examining the allegations of prolonged physical abuse and possible sexual abuse. The state’s child-protection agency has confirmed that it is investigating, but the full findings have not been publicly released.

Third, authorities may need to determine whether further charges are warranted as evidence develops. Any additional charges would need to be formally announced and supported by the relevant legal process.

Finally, the surviving child’s safety and care will remain a priority for the authorities responsible for the case.

The investigation is still developing, and not every question can be answered from the information currently available. Further court filings, official statements and verified reporting may provide additional details about the events leading up to the child’s death.

For Maya’s family and the Paulsboro community, the legal proceedings will be only one part of a much longer process of grief and recovery.

The case has already revealed a deeply troubling set of allegations: a child died with extensive injuries, the explanation initially offered to police was challenged by surveillance footage and medical findings, and authorities are now examining whether the child suffered abuse beyond the incident that caused her death.

As the investigation continues, the central questions remain what happened to Maya, who was responsible and whether the evidence will establish a broader pattern of abuse. Those questions must be answered through verified evidence and the judicial process, while protecting the privacy and safety of the surviving child.

SOURCES
https://nypost.com/2026/10/17/us-news/nj-couple-accused-of-killing-9-year-old-daughter-now-being-probed-for-sexually-abusing-her-report/