from Montgomery Circuit Court. (DR-12-181.04).
Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Donaldson,
Christine Wampol (" the mother" ) appeals from a
judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court on competing
postdivorce petitions filed by her and Justin Rolfe McElhaney
(" the father" ). We affirm in part and reverse in
parties were divorced by a judgment of the trial court in
November 2012. The parties were awarded joint legal custody
of their minor child, D.M. (" the child" ), the
mother was awarded primary physical custody of the child, and
the father was ordered to pay monthly child support. On
January 2, 2014, the father filed a petition requesting that
be required to show cause why she should not be held in
contempt of court. On January 24, 2014, the mother filed an
answer and a counterpetition, seeking, among other things,
sole legal custody of the child and requesting, among other
things, that the trial court hold the father in contempt and
order him to pay her attorney's fees. On March 5, 2014,
the father answered the mother's counterpetition. On
March 6, 2014, the father filed an amended petition seeking,
among other things, increased visitation or, alternatively,
joint physical custody of the child. On April 2, 2014, the
mother filed an answer to the amended petition. On June 19,
2014, the mother filed an amendment to her counterpetition,
requesting a modification of child support. After a trial,
the trial court entered a judgment on October 8, 2014, which,
among other things, modified the father's visitation with
the child and reduced the father's child-support
obligation. On October 30, 2014, the mother filed a
postjudgment motion. On December 9, 2014, the trial court
entered a judgment amending its previous judgment with regard
to child support and clarifying the father's visitation
schedule. On January 16, 2015, the mother filed her notice of
appeal, the mother first argues that the trial court erred in
excluding the testimony of Jennifer McElhaney, the
father's current wife, based on the husband-wife
privilege. See Rule 504, Ala. R. Evid.
" '" ' The standard applicable to a review
of a trial court's rulings on the admission of evidence
is determined by two fundamental principles. The first grants
trial judges wide discretion to exclude or to admit
evidence.'" Mock v. Allen, 783 So.2d 828,
835 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Wal--Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Thompson, 726 So.2d 651, 655 (Ala. 1998))....
" '" 'The second principle " is that a
judgment cannot be reversed on appeal for an error [in the
improper admission of evidence] unless ... it should appear
that the error complained of has probably injuriously
affected substantial rights of the parties." '"
Mock, 783 So.2d at 835 (quoting Wal--Mart
Stores, 726 So.2d at 655, quoting in turn Atkins v.
Lee, 603 So.2d 937, 941 (Ala. 1992)). See also Ala. R.
App. P. 45. " The burden of establishing that an
erroneous ruling was prejudicial is on the appellant."
Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 589 So.2d 165,
167 (Ala. 1991).'
" Middleton v. Lightfoot,885 So.2d 111, 113-14
(Ala. 2003). The Alabama Rules of Evidence provide that a
judgment cannot be reversed because evidence was improperly
excluded unless 'the substance of the evidence was made
known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context