Ok, I'm sorry to butt in, but I have to post regarding the legs....
Hey there RetouchPro people, long time reader, first time (in a very long while) poster.
This picture appears to be of a toddler, around 12-18 months in age. Babies of this age are often very very chubby, hence the tree trunk legs. Her head is around a fifth of the size of her body length which supports the above age and the shadows on her legs are from the room lighting and the furniture that it appears that she is holding onto.
And I have to agree strongly with Kraellin, and their demonstration of the leg line.
You HAVE to follow the sock line and discount the light area between her legs. Even pants that are short enough to show her socks wouldn't cause her socks to cut into her leg like that. The knees are chubby as heck - see the above comment about baby fat and the fat that babies have - and then lastly I will reinforce Lurch's brilliant point that young girls in this era (or girls of any age mind you) never wore pants under dresses or skirts. This is pre 1950's, not 1982.
It is incredibly important for a restoration artist to understand basic biology and how it relates to subject age, and basic history and how it might relate to the way a period dress.
So no pants. Especially in a portrait.