the second person may be the proper outcry witness. 792 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tex. Crim.App.1990). In Garcia, the Court in terpreted the “first person” and “statement about the offense” language in article 38.072 to mean that the outcry witness must be the first person, 18 years old or older, to whom the child made a statement that in some discernible manner described the alleged offense. Id. Despite the fact that the child first told her teacher about her step-father’s abuse, the Court held that the trial court properly designated another person as the outcry witness because that person was the “first person” to whom the child actually described the offense in a discernable manner. Id. at 91-92; accord Hayden v. State, 928 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. State, 831 S.W.2d 50, 54
holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding the record does not show that the statement to the social worker was for medical treatment because the social worker testified that he questioned the child to determine whether he needed to notify child protective services of a case of suspected child abuse holding that child protection service worker was proper outcry witness because there was no evidence that school counselor to whom child first made outcry statement was given any details of alleged offense holding child welfare worker entitled to qualified immunity where child removed on reasonable suspicion of abuse