A. The physical presence of a nonresident party who is an individual in a tribunal of this state is not required for the establishment, enforcement or modification of a support order or the rendition of a judgment determining parentage of a child.

B. An affidavit, a document substantially complying with federally mandated forms, or a document incorporated by reference in any of them that would not be excluded under the hearsay rule if given in person, is admissible in evidence if given under penalty of perjury by a party or witness residing outside this state.

C. A copy of the record of child support payments certified as a true copy of the original by the custodian of the record may be forwarded to a responding tribunal. The copy is evidence of facts asserted in it and is admissible to show whether payments were made.

D. Copies of bills for testing for parentage of a child and for prenatal and postnatal health care of the mother and child, furnished to the adverse party at least ten days before trial, are admissible in evidence to prove the amount of the charges billed and that the charges were reasonable, necessary and customary.

E. Documentary evidence transmitted from outside this state to a tribunal of this state by telephone, telecopier or other electronic means that do not provide an original record may not be excluded from evidence on an objection based on the means of transmission.

F. In a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, a tribunal of this state shall permit a party or witness residing outside this state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means or other electronic means at a designated tribunal or other location. A tribunal of this state shall cooperate with other tribunals in designating an appropriate location for the deposition or testimony.

G. If a party called to testify at a civil hearing refuses to answer on the ground that the testimony may be self-incriminating, the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference from the refusal.

H. A privilege against disclosure of communications between spouses does not apply in a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

I. The defense of immunity based on the relationship of husband and wife or parent and child does not apply in a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

J. A voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, certified as a true copy, is admissible to establish parentage of the child.

History: Laws 1994, ch. 107, § 316; 2005, ch. 166, § 26; 2011, ch. 159, § 27.

Cross references. — For New Mexico Rules of Evidence, see Rules 11-101 to 11-1102 NMRA.

Compiler's notes. — Laws 2016, ch. 61, § 1 repealed Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, an applicability clause and contingent effective date, respectively, effective May 18, 2016, thereby making Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 1 through 68, effective May 18, 2016. For provisions of Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, see compiler's note to 40-6A-100 NMSA 1978.

The 2011 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, included transmissions by other electronic means within the scope of Subsection E.

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, provided in Subsection (a) that the physical presence of a nonresident party who is an individual is not required; deleted the provision that a verified petition is admissible in evidence and requires that documents be given under penalty of perjury to be admissible in evidence; and added Subsection (j) to provide that a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, certified as a true copy, is admissible to establish parentage.