“forensic interviewer.” Rather, Thomas used the information she gathered from Jordan and his family to develop a written treatment plan and continued to provide counseling and advice on parenting techniques in subsequent meetings with family members. These actions are consistent with Thomas’s testimony that, in cases like this one, her “primary purpose [was] to provide the treatment and assistance that the family needs.” J.A. 1482. Evaluating the primary purpose of a child declarant like Jordan is a bit more difficult. In analyzing whether statements made by a child were testimonial, courts have not treated the young age of a declarant as determinative but instead have considered age as one of the “relevant circumstances.” E.g., Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163, 181-82 (Pa.2012) (<HOLDING>). In another case involving child declarants,
holding that certifications of parent and child regarding her desire to live with her father were sufficient to warrant a plenary hearing holding the claimant established by clear and convincing evidence that her depression was caused by her compensable physical injury holding that a fouryearolds statement to a child services caseworker that her father caused her brothers injury was nontestimonial holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends holding that the ij erred by failing to consider an explanation offered by the petitioner for her brothers failure to appear and testify on her behalf