In Fox v. State, 115 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2002, pet. ref'd), the Fourteenth Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant did not satisfy his burden of establishing that his expert was qualified to testify regarding the: (1) proper protocols for interviewing a child who has been abused; (2) developmental stages of a child; (3) behavioral patterns of an abused child. Id. at 565-66. The court noted the expert's qualifications as follows: (1) she had a master's degree in social work from the University of Texas and a psychology degree from the University of Saint Thomas; (2) she worked for Child Protective Services and dealt with abused children; (3) at the time of trial, she had been a social worker in the public sector for ten years and in private practice for five years; (4) she had been the Director of Behavioral Health at the Spring Branch Medical Center. Id. at 565. The court concluded that "because the expert had so little experience in dealing specifically with abused children and little experience in the techniques typically used to interview abused children, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding her not qualified to testify as an expert witness." Id. at 566.