its ruling allowing the evidence, the trial court held, "[tjhere is nothing in the recklessness definition that states that a defendant doesn't have to mean to do what he or she did'—the reckless [element] goes to things other than just whether or not they meant to actually commit the very act." 22 . State v. Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118, ¶ 28, 62 P.3d 444 (noting that the list of allowed nonchar-acter purposes in rule 404(b) is not exhaustive). 23 . State v. Widdison, 2001 UT 60, ¶ 41, 28 P.3d 1278. 24 . State v. Featherson, 781 P.2d 424, 426 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295 (Utah 1988)); see also State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67, ¶ 26, 52 P.3d 1194. 25 . 2000 UT 68, ¶ 26, 8 P.3d 1025 (quoting State v. Tanner, 675 P.2d 539, 546 (Utah 1983)); Tanner, 675 P.2d at 546 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Teuscher, 883 P.2d 922, 927
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 that in cases of child abuse evidence of specific instances of a defendants treatment of a child are relevant to establish specific patterns of behavior by the defendant toward one particular child not merely a general disposition for violence or illwill toward all children holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child