2008 Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ...

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 telephone and supply documents by fax. 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.
SECTION 317. COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN TRIBUNALS. A tribunal of this
State state may communicate with a tribunal of another outside this State state or foreign country
or political subdivision in a record or by telephone, electronic mail, or other means, to obtain
111