Child appeals a juvenile court order of commitment asserting jurisdiction over him for sexual abuse of his two half-sisters. He contends that hearsay declarations of the elder of the sisters, who was held by the trial judge to be unavailable to testify, admitted under OEC 803(18a)(b) 1 should have been excluded, either because that statute unconstitutionally deprives him of his confrontation rights or because its corroboration requirements were not met. We affirm.

OEC 803(18a)(b) is constitutional. State v. Renly, 111 Or App 453, 458, 827 P2d 1345 (1992).

Corroboration is not a constitutional requirement, Idaho v. Wright, 497 US 805, 110 S Ct 3139, 111 L Ed 2d 638 (1990), but is required to “ensure that an accused not be convicted solely on the basis of hearsay.” State v. Renly, supra, 111 Or App at 463. Corroborating evidence can include “a confession, an [eyewitness] account, physical evidence and evidence showing that the accused had access to the purported victim.” 111 Or App at 463. The evidence showed that child had access to the victims and that he admitted that “possibly his finger slipped” while helping the elder sister to wipe after going to the bathroom. 2 That was sufficient corroboration.

Affirmed.