he believed she understood that explanation. Record at 44. That impression was reenforced by Mr. Mills’ subsequent testimony that CK later asked him “to help her with taking out anger on others.” Record at 47. Given that the patient was a 6 year-old child and unlikely to have much intellectual appreciation of the role of mental health professionals, we find CK’s articulation of a desire for Mr. Mills to help her with an emotional problem to be convincing evidence of her understanding that she was seeing Mr. Mills as part of some treatment that was supposed to benefit her. Consequently, she would have had the necessary motivation to speak truthfully that supports this exception to the hearsay rule. See Clark; Edens; Dean; White; cf. United States v. Avila, 27 M.J. 62, 66 (C.M.A.1988) (<HOLDING>). Even though Mr. Mills also testified that he
holding that the term medical as used in the hearsay exception regarding statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment includes emotional and mental health as well as physical health 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 holding also that only a childs first statement made is admissible under the exception holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial 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