another interview, especially by a stranger, would also interfere with their therapy, and that additional interviews would serve no useful purpose. Finally, the court rejected the father’s hearsay and Sixth Amendment claims. We review the father’s constitutional claim de novo. See State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797, 806 (Iowa 1997) (reviewing claimed violation of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment de novo). To the extent the father’s claim of error rests on statutory interpretation, our review is for correction of errors of law. See State v. Terry, 569 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Iowa 1997). Otherwise, we generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Veal, 564 N.W.2d at 803; State v. Weaver, 554 N.W.2d 240, 247 (Iowa 1996); cf. In re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 482 (Iowa 1981) (<HOLDING>). We find an abuse of discretion where a
holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in its admitting extraneous evidence to rebut a defensive theory holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence