at 1115. This Court held that the district court did not err because “the interview took place for the purpose of, and was reasonably pertinent to, medical diagnosis and treatment.” Id. Similarly, in George, 960 F.2d 97, the defendant was charged with sexually abusing his daughter. A doctor examined her five months after the alleged abuse, during which exam the minor identified George as the assailant. Id. at 98-99. The doctor also testified that “she asked about the assailant’s identity for the purpose of diagnosing and treating the victim.” Id. at 99. George was convicted. Id. On appeal, this Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the doctor’s testimony. Id. at 100-01; see also People of Territory of Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608, 613 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, Pike testified that when N.S. arrived
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 statements by a boyfriend to a social worker that he hit an abused mother as well as her child were not privileged 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 child welfare worker entitled to qualified immunity where child removed on reasonable suspicion of abuse holding that statements made to a social worker that may have bearing on a childs health safety and welfare are not privileged and are subject to compulsory disclosure under the harmful acts exception to social worker privilege