modicum when the patient is a child, there must still be sufficient evidence to support a finding that both prongs of the test are met. United States v. Faciane, 40 M.J. 399, 403 (C.M.A.1994). “In conducting an analysis of a child-victim’s expectation when receiving medical treatment, courts can look beyond the testimony of the child and consider the testimony of the treating care provider and others who explained the purpose of the meeting with the provider.” Russell, 66 M.J. at 606 (citing Hollis, 57 M.J. at 79-81). AM’s mother explained to her that they were going to the hospital so a doctor could make sure she was ok. Dr. MH explained to AM that he was a “kid doctor” and was there to evaluate AM to see if treatment was necessary. Cf. United States v. Avila, 27 M.J. 62 (C.M.A.1988) (<HOLDING>). Dr. MH treated AM in a clinical setting,
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 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 that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child 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 childs statements to a psychologist who was introduced to the child only as kathy and as just another mommy were not admissible under medical diagnosis and treatment exception