disagree. With regard to a child declarant, it is important that there be affirmative evidence of the child’s understanding of the purpose for which information is being obtained from her in order to preserve the trustworthiness guarantee inherent in Rule 803(4). Wade, 136 N.H. at 755. In Wade, the doctor testified only about her standard practice when initially seeing a patient and the importance of taking a medical history, thus shedding light on the doctor’s motives, but not the victim’s. Id. at 756. Here, Gladstone testified that she had a prior relationship with the victim concerning a separate medical issue and that she explained to the victim each time they met, including on the day of the assault, that she was a doctor for children. See State v. Lowe, 140 N.H. 271, 275 (1995) (<HOLDING>). She stated that the victim appeared to
holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence holding that fouryearold childs presence in familiar location where child had previously received medical care supported trial courts finding that statements were reliable holding that endangering conduct need not be engaged in in the childs presence holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify holding that statements by a fouryearold child to a psychologist who introduced herself with her first name and as just another mommy were not admissible