With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Child Hearsay Statute actually contemplates testimony from both the child and those witnessing the child’s later reaction, even if the hearsay may be ‘bolstering.’ ” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ledford v. State, 313 Ga. App. 389, 391-392 (2) (721 SE2d 585) (2011) (“Any ‘bolstering’ can be explored by defendant in cross-examination.” (citation and punctuation omitted)); see also Weathersby v. State, 262 Ga. 126, 128 (4) (a) (414 SE2d 200) (1992). Here, Laster does not assert that the statutory requirements were not met, and we have previously held that, under OCGA § 24-3-16 (2012), the order of witnesses is irrelevant to the question of the admissibility of child hearsay evidence. See OCGA § 24-3-16 (2012); Hilliard v. State, 298 Ga. App. 473, 477 (4) (a) (680 SE2d 541) (2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in

A: 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
B: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
C: holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child
D: holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination
A.