Colorado Code
Part 3 - Civil Provisions of General Application
§ 14-5-316. Special Rules of Evidence and Procedure

Source: L. 93: Entire article R&RE, p. 1593, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2003: (a), (b), (e), and (f) amended and (j) added, p. 1254, § 23, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2015: (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) amended, (HB 15-1198), ch. 173, p. 552, § 23, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former §§ 14-5-121 and 14-5-124 as they existed prior to 1993.
Cross references: For privileged evidence of husband and wife generally, see §§ 13-90-107 and 13-90-108.
COMMENT
Note that the special rules of evidence and procedure are applicable to a party or witness "residing outside this state," substituting for "residing in another state." This is the broadest application possible because the utility of these special rules is not limited to parties in other states, or in foreign countries, as defined in the act, but extends to an individual residing anywhere. This extremely broad application of the special rules is to facilitate the processing of a support order in this state or elsewhere. This section combines many time-tested procedures with innovative methods for gathering evidence in interstate cases.
Subsection (a) ensures that a nonresident petitioner or a nonresident respondent may fully participate in a proceeding under the act without being required to appear personally. Subsection (b) recognizes the pervasive effect of the federal forms promulgated by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, which replace the necessity of swearing to a document "under oath" with the simpler requirement that the document be provided "under penalty of perjury," as has long been required by federal income tax Form 1040.
Subsections (b) through (f) provide special rules of evidence designed to take into account the virtually unique nature of the interstate proceedings under this act. These subsections provide exceptions to the otherwise guiding principle of UIFSA, i.e., local procedural and substantive law should apply. Because the out-of-state party, and that party's witnesses, necessarily do not ordinarily appear in person at the hearing, deviation from the ordinary rules of evidence is justified in order to assure that the tribunal will have available to it the maximum amount of information on which to base its decision. The intent throughout these subsections is to eliminate by statute as many potential hearsay problems as possible in interstate litigation, with the goal of providing each party with the means to present evidence, even if not physically present.
Subsection (d) provides a simplified means for proving health-care expenses related to the birth of a child. Because ordinarily the amount of these charges is not in dispute, this is designed to obviate the cost of having health-care providers appear in person or of obtaining affidavits of business records from each provider.
Subsections (e) and (f) encourage tribunals and litigants to take advantage of modern methods of communication in interstate support litigation; most dramatically, the out-of-state party is authorized to testify by the full panoply of audio and audiovisual technologies currently available for direct personal communication and to supply documents by fax, email, or direct transfer between computers or other electronic devices. One of the most useful applications of these subsections is to provide an enforcing tribunal with up-to-date information concerning the amount of arrears.
Subsection (f) unambiguously mandates that telephone or audiovisual testimony in depositions and hearings must be allowed. It anticipates that every courtroom is equipped with a speakerphone. In a day when laptop computers often come equipped with a video camera, live testimony from a remote location is not only possible, but almost as reliable as if the testimony was given in person. No doubt a demeanor is better judged in person than by viewing a video screen, but the latter is certainly preferable to only a disembodied voice.
Subsection (g) codifies the rule in effect in many states that in civil litigation an adverse inference may be drawn from a litigant's silence that restriction of the Fifth Amendment does not apply. A related analogy is that a refusal to submit to genetic testing may be admitted into evidence and a trier of fact may resolve the question of parentage against the refusing party on the basis of an inference that the results of the test would have been unfavorable to the interest of that party.
Subsection (j), new in 2001, complies with the federally mandated procedure that every state must honor the "acknowledgment of paternity" validly made in another state.
Related to Convention: art. 13. Means of communication; art. 14. Effective access to procedures; art. 29. Physical presence of the child or the applicant not required.