In re Stephanie B.
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from two orders of Family Court, one adjudicating Stephanie B. an abused child and the other adjudicating Zachary B. a neglected child. He contends that the determinations of the court are not supported by sufficient evidence and that the court erred in refusing to admit polygraph evidence.
It is well settled that a finding that a child has been abused or neglected pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tammie Z.,
Where, as here, the allegedly abused child has provided out-of-court statements relative to the abuse, such statements are admissible under the statutory exception to the hearsay rule in Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi), so long as there is corroboration. The “in camera unsworn but cross-examined testimony” of Stephanie constituted such corroboration (Matter of Christina F.,
We conclude that the determinations that Stephanie was sexually abused and that Zachary was neglected by respondent are amply supported by the evidence (see, Matter of Brandy J., supra).