Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-316 (2026)

Special rules of evidence and procedure

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(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, which 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 under this article, a tribunal of this state shall permit a party or witness residing outside this state to be deposed or to testify under penalty of perjury 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 under this article.

(i) The defense of immunity based on the relationship of husband and wife or parent and child does not apply in a proceeding under this article.

(j) A voluntary acknowledgment of parentage, certified as a true copy, is admissible to establish parentage of the child.

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. L. 2022: (j) amended (HB 22-1153), ch. 210, p. 1394, § 6, effective August 10.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: in Interest of S.C, 2020 COA 95 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in Interest of S.C, 2020 COA 95 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “Rather, section 14-5-316, C.R.S. 2019, required the magistrate to accept mother’s testimony by telephone or other electronic means, regardless of whether she had outstanding warrants in Colorado.”
People Ex Rel. Orange Cnty. Ex Rel. T.M.S. v. M.A.S., 962 P.2d 339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Further, §14-5-316®, C.R.S.1997, provides that, in a proceeding under UIFSA, a tribunal of this state may permit a party or witness residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual, or other electronic means at a designated tribunal or other…”
Leventhal v. Jensen (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “43 was displaced by section 14-5-316(a), (f), C.R.S. 2025, which requires a court to permit a party residing out of state to testify remotely in a proceeding under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-316(a) — 2 cases
in Interest of S.C, 2020 COA 95 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Rather, section 14-5-316, C.R.S. 2019, required the magistrate to accept mother’s testimony by telephone or other electronic means, regardless of whether she had outstanding warrants in Colorado.”
Leventhal v. Jensen (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). “43 was displaced by section 14-5-316(a), (f), C.R.S. 2025, which requires a court to permit a party residing out of state to testify remotely in a proceeding under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-5-316(b) — 1 case
People Ex Rel. Orange Cnty. Ex Rel. T.M.S. v. M.A.S., 962 P.2d 339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). “Further, §14-5-316®, C.R.S.1997, provides that, in a proceeding under UIFSA, a tribunal of this state may permit a party or witness residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual, or other electronic means at a designated tribunal or other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.