What? On what planet do "rules of evidence" not apply in any court or tribunal proceeding, to say nothing of a "family or domestic relations" court? Of course they do. Opposing counsel can challenge or move to suppress evidence, impeach witnesses etc., etc.
To address this specific situation, The Federal Rules of Civil procedure is quite clear with respect to verifying or proving an official record. Here's the relevant standard that must be met that's found in FRCP Rule 44. Proving an Official Record...
"(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept."
A HI "Certification of Live Birth" with the appropriate seal or endorsement by a relevant government official, easily meets that standard. If Obama's purported COLB is genuine and he provides that document to the court, that document clearly states he was born in HI. That is evidence of US birth that will be virtually impossible for a challenger to overcome.
I take it you don’t practice family law...
All sorts of evidentiary rules don’t apply to the family law arena— income tax returns, hearsay, “Riflerize” etc.
The case you cited to to prove paternity is completely different than a civil case. Family law looks to provide support for spouses and especially children, and there the family law judge would seek to find paternity, for the child’s welfare. Evidentiary rules notwithstanding.
That is not our case here.
Obama should submit the vault copy of his birth certificate, anything else will be viewed with distrust (per the jury instruction).