that already presented, the Court would have to hold, out of fairness to both sides, counsel to the time allotted. And that means it’s been expended. These portions of the transcript not only demonstrate that the mother has failed to advise us of any prejudice resulting from the complained-of action by the trial court, but that she also failed to advise the trial court of any claimed prejudice. In that regard, the quoted portion of the record makes it clear that she did not make the required offer of proof at trial as to the evidence that she would have presented at trial if given more time, such that even if the mother’s point relied on were not wholly defective, she failed to preserve her claim for appellate review in any event. See Brady v. Brady, 39 S.W.3d 557, 560-61 (Mo.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). As a result of the substantial deficiencies
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that to properly preserve an objection to the trial courts imposing a time limit for the presentation of evidence the objecting party must make a specific and definite offer of proof informing the trial court of the evidence that is being excluded by the limitation holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding that an adequate offer of proof is normally required to preserve error when a trial court excludes evidence