2. They are not relevant or germane to [the plaintiff's] medical treatment. (See, e.g., Gil v. Gil , 94 Conn. App. 306, 320, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) ; State v. Dollinger , 20 Conn. App. 530, 534, 568 A.2d 1058, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805, 574 A.2d 220 (1990) (‘[b]ecause statements concerning the cause of injury ... are generally not germane to treatment, they are not allowed into evidence under the medical treatment exception [to the rule against hearsay]’).
In appropriate circumstances a parent's continuing interference with visitation has been found to be a basis for a finding that such parent is in contempt of the orders of the court. See e. g., Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 312 n. 4, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In extreme circumstances a parent's efforts at prohibiting and/or interfering with court-ordered visitation can result in that parent losing custody of the minor child and the commissioner of the department of children and families ("DCF") being appointed as custodian. Bhatia v. Debek, CT Page 5242 2005 Ct.Sup. 7854, 7895, No. NNH FA 00-04005681S, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven (Munro, J., May 2, 2005).
In connection with determining the disposition of a neglect case, the court looks at the full picture of the family circumstances, including the full history of each parent's parenting abilities, to determine whether either parent can and will ". . . foster the [child's] growth, development and well-being . . ." Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 322, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In the Gil case, a dissolution of marriage case, this requirement has been expressed as follows:
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). “We review the court's factual findings in the context of a motion for contempt to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff wilfully failed to comply with a separation agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment that provided for an alimony buyout in place of periodic alimony.
Such testimonial inconsistencies, however, go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence. See Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 318, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) (“[t]he fact that evidence may be subject to several interpretations does not affect its admissibility as long as it can be construed as relevant”). III
'' Such testimonial inconsistencies, however, go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence. See Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn. App. 306, 318, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) (''[t]he fact that evidence may be subject to several interpretations does not affect its admissibility as long as it can be construed as relevant''). III
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). “[It] is within the sound discretion of the court to deny a claim for contempt when there is an adequate factual basis to explain the failure to honor the court's order.”
Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 316, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In the present case, we conclude that the defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of Bartram's deposition fee.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn. App. 306, 310, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). This court has held that the trial court has the discretion to order a contemnor to submit to a psychological evaluation if it is necessary to enforce a court's earlier order.