assert the privilege ... not to preserve the confidentiality of the child’s statements to the psychologist, but to exclude potentially harmful testimony in a murder trial. Even assuming that defendant was the child’s guardian, we conclude that defendant was not entitled to assert the statutory privilege ....’” (quoting People v. Lobaito, 133 Mich.App. 547, 351 N.W.2d 233, 240-41 (1984))); In re M.P.S., 342 S.W.2d 277, 283 (Mo.Ct.App.1961) (concluding that in a neglected child case, “[wjhere the privilege is claimed on behalf of the parent rather than that of the child, or where the welfare and interest of the minor will not be protected, a parent should not be permitted to either claim the privilege, ... or, for that matter, to waive it”); Ellison v. Ellison, 919 P.2d 1, 3 (Okla.1996) (<HOLDING>). What emerges from Nagle, and the cases we
holding that the patientphysician privilege does not prevent testimony by a physician as to the fact that he was consulted by a patient on a certain date recognizing strong presumption in favor of parents right to custody absent misconduct or neglect which renders the parent unfit holding that in a modification of custody proceeding a custodial parent may not invoke the privilege  to prevent testimony by a physician or psychotherapist as to the childpatients communication relevant to abuse and neglect holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody holding that parent has custodial right to prevent visitation with nonparent