O.C.G.A. § 19-11-135 (2019)
Physical presence of individual nonresident party not required; admissible evidence
(a) The physical presence of a nonresident party who is an individual in a tribunal of Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia 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 paternity, certified as a true copy, is admissible to establish parentage of the child.
History
Code 1981, § 19-11-135, enacted by Ga.
L. 1997, p. 1613, § 33; Ga. L. 2013, p. 705, § 1/SB 193.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Testimony by telephone. - Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-11-135(f) and given that two closely interrelated contempt proceedings between a former husband and a former wife were consolidated for hearing, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in permitting one of the former spouses to testify by telephone or by not dismissing the spouse’s contempt motion for want of prosecution. Baars v. Freeman, 288 Ga. 835, 708 S.E.2d 273, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 246 (2011). Denial of grandparent’s request to appear by telephone. - In a grandpar-
ent visitation matter, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in connection with the court’s denial of the grandmother’s request to appear by telephone, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-50(b), because the trial court properly determined that the grandmother was not indigent based on the information provided that the grandmother’s monthly income was $4,669. Devlin v. Devlin, 339 Ga. App. 520, 791 S.E.2d 840, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 506 (2016).