Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2316 (2026)

Special rules of evidence and procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code 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 (10) 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 parts 20-29 of this chapter, 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 parts 20-29 of this chapter.

(i) The defense of immunity based on the relationship of husband and wife or parent and child does not apply in a proceeding under parts 20-29 of this chapter.

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

Acts 2010, ch. 901, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2018 · leading case: LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). “Section 36-5-2202 provides as follows: Procedure when exercising jurisdiction over nonresident A tribunal of this state exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident under § 36-5-2201 [the long-arm statute] may apply § 36-5-2316 (Special Rules of Evidence and Procedure)…”

State, ex rel., Shem Peter Malmquist v. Danielle Nicolosi Malmquist (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2316 (2017). Whether the UIFSA applies here is a question of law, which we review de novo, with no presumption of correctness.”

Letellier v. Letellier, 40 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. 2001). “Section 36-5-2202 provides as follows: Procedure when exercising jurisdiction over nonresident—• A tribunal of this state exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident under § 36-5-2201 [the long-arm statute] may apply § 36-5-2316 (Special Rules of Evidence and Procedure)…”

In Re Mya H. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “(noting that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act’s express provision allowing an adverse inference where a party refuses to testify in a civil hearing may also support a related rule “that refusal to submit to genetic testing may be admitted into evidence and a trier of…”

Benita Renee Yocum v. Jason Richard Yocum (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “2013) (permitting an incarcerated parent or guardian to participate by telephone in a hearing to terminate parental rights); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-2316 (f) (2010) (permitting a witness located in another state to testify by telephone in cases under the Uniform Interstate Family…”

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.