CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #17

[Angelonline]

Im hoping Azgrandma has shared her thoughts with investigators in this case.

 

[catswhiskers]

Dylan arrived at the airport in Durango just after 7 pm. His phone was disabled at 8 pm. I wish MR would talk about the phone and why Dylan didn't use it after 8 pm. That phone was his lifeline to his mom and friends. I wonder why the reporter didn't ask about that phone, would have been my first question.

BBM and agreed. It seems strange to me that holes like this are being left open deliberately, and not necessarily just by MR. Why wouldn't a reporter ask about this directly - could there have been a directive from LE in this regard? I don't recall that information was released about the number of calls/texts sent or received between the time Dylan landed in Durango and the mysterious 8pm. Even those details could be little clues IMO. If the phone was in constant use and then suddenly stopped dead at 8, then yes it could have died or been taken from him or destroyed. Did he text any friends at all? Was it just one, or many? Given the way reporters pounce on absolutely anyone related to a crime for information - I wonder why we haven't been shown the actual content of any texts from that evening.

Maybe a silly question, but has there been much of a media presence in Vallecito/Bayfield itself - or has it just been handled by local reporters and then paraphrased by others?

 

[OneLove]

My guess, from what I read last night, MR accepted the proposal to sign in order not to have to pay, but then never actually signed (or paid) leaving them in a sort of limbo.

Yes, and this would probably also mean that children couldn't get medical insurance coverage with the father raising them (step) and a myriad of other practical needs couldn't be covered. :what:

 

[NC Analyzer]

The Amber Alert has been brought up many times. Here's a little info on it that might help .

http://www.amberalert.gov/guidelines.htm

Law Enforcement Confirms an Abduction
.....................................................

AMBER plans require law enforcement to confirm an abduction prior to issuing an alert. This is essential when determining the level of risk to the child.

Risk of Serious Bodily Injury or Death
..................................................
Plans require a child be at risk for serious bodily harm or death before an alert can be issued.

Sufficient Descriptive Information
..............................................

For an AMBER Alert to be effective in recovering a missing child, the law enforcement agency must have enough information to believe that an immediate broadcast to the public will enhance the efforts of law enforcement to locate the child and apprehend the suspect.

Age of Child
.....................
Every state adopt the “17 years of age or younger” standard;

NCIC Data Entry
..........................

Immediately enter AMBER Alert data into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system.


So for days and days they were unsure and still today may be UNSURE if an abduction took place. That is the reason I guess there was not one. Also they usually do have a description of the abductor or vehicle .

Thank you so much for this information! I used to explain this often, but I gave up. A lot of people think that just because a child is missing there should be an Amber Alert. I just couldn't get it across that unless there is information concerning a potential SUSPECT and a VEHICLE description then there is NOTHING to broadcast on the Amber Alert! The point of the Amber alerts is for the public to be on the lookout for a particular vehicle/suspect...not just to notify the public that a child is missing.

 

[TxLady2]

IDK; guess mark got to keep his kids' $40,000....because that's what child support is - money to your kids

You know... maybe one reason he didn't pay it, could be because he was kept from seeing them, for whatever reason. This happened with one family I knew. The dad refused to pay child support because his ex would never let him see them and she got away with it for years. He did end up having to pay it, plus the back support he owed, but he had no choice, they took it out of his pay.
OTOH, my DIL always let her son visit his dad, never refused him his visitation rights and he rarely paid child support. She had him arrested time after time. He would pay the current and maybe a little extra, but not all that he owed. Her lawyer finally filed papers and she got all the back support, eventually.
There are always two sides to every story. Three, if you want to count the truth as one side. And I'm not referring to this case, just saying.

 

[Confusion]

My daughters ex was an abuser. He also had an ex with his child. He relinquished his rights to get out of paying child support. Once my daughter divorced him, he stalked her for years until she let him out of paying child support.
He was dangerous. Thank goodnes he relinquished his rights with all of his children.
This is what I suspect led to this situation with MR and Dylan. He was sick and tired of paying. Jmo

If they had joint custody (or whatever it's called in Colorado), he probably wouldn't have paid any support, at least that's how it works here. Of course, there are different types of custody: One can have sole physical custody while they have shared legal custody.

 

[catswhiskers]

Thank you! That explains things better. I think my brain is numb. Along with my butt from straddling this fence.

I hope and pray that Dylan is somewhere safe and warm. But if he's gone, and if it turns out that his dad had anything to do with it, I will be happy to eat crow. I hear that if you put enough barbecue sauce on it, it's not too bad.

But if it turns out that he had nothing to do with it.... I promise not to gloat. Much. :floorlaugh:

Same here As I have said a few times now I am dreading finding out that I am such a bad reader of people and information - and I am saying that most sincerely. I just saw vasportsmom's post above

Which could explain his attempt at directing the search to the lake.

and it made me gulp a little lease:

I am obviously a bit too trusting and willing to give people the benefit of doubt - thankfully LE don't need to feel as torn.

Have wanted to say for a while that LE should have sent an experienced mum in to search MR's house for evidence that Dylan had in fact been there - IMO a mother wouldn't fall for staged evidence that a boy had spent some time there and could have put us all out of our misery on that score!

 

[NC Analyzer]

You know... maybe one reason he didn't pay it, could be because he was kept from seeing them, for whatever reason. This happened with one family I knew. The dad refused to pay child support because his ex would never let him see them and she got away with it for years. He did end up having to pay it, plus the back support he owed, but he had no choice, they took it out of his pay.
OTOH, my DIL always let her son visit his dad, never refused him his visitation rights and he rarely paid child support. She had him arrested time after time. He would pay the current and maybe a little extra, but not all that he owed. Her lawyer finally filed papers and she got all the back support, eventually.
There are always two sides to every story. Three, if you want to count the truth as one side. And I'm not referring to this case, just saying.

Child support is not contingent upon visitation...just as visitation is not contingent upon paying child support.
Fathers have every right to see their children regardless if they pay support or not. It is their responsibility to ensure their rights are not violated.

 

[Confusion]

You know... maybe one reason he didn't pay it, could be because he was kept from seeing them, for whatever reason. This happened with one family I knew. The dad refused to pay child support because his ex would never let him see them and she got away with it for years. He did end up having to pay it, plus the back support he owed, but he had no choice, they took it out of his pay.
OTOH, my DIL always let her son visit his dad, never refused him his visitation rights and he rarely paid child support. She had him arrested time after time. He would pay the current and maybe a little extra, but not all that he owed. Her lawyer finally filed papers and she got all the back support, eventually.
There are always two sides to every story. Three, if you want to count the truth as one side. And I'm not referring to this case, just saying.

I know that it is possible for a step-parent to adopt a child without the ncp relinquishing parental rights, at least in some places. If the ncp has not paid child support, and hasn't had contact with the child/children for over a year, the courts CAN terminate the ncp's parental rights and allow the adoption. It does require sending a certified letter to the parent with information about when and where the hearing will be. If the person doesn't show up for it, the rights can be terminated.

 

[Kamille]

My guess, from what I read last night, MR accepted the proposal to sign in order not to have to pay, but then never actually signed (or paid) leaving them in a sort of limbo.

I was under the impression that he signed the agreement regarding child support but not the final decree to give up his rights as a father. Which is a vindictive move at it's best and is exactly what azgrandma was trying to convey IMO. He's a con man and a manipulator. He manipulated himself into not paying the back support but would not give the new husband and likely only real father the boys have known, the priviledge of adopting them.

It appears to me that he acts out of spite. He was quite content with the arrangement regarding Dylan and CR for the three years prior to ER requesting the right to move to a new town and to take the boys with her. He barely saw them but he knew where they were and what they were up to. All of a sudden, when the court awarded ER custody and permitted her to move the boys away, a move that he fought every step of the way, he was going out of his way to force visitation, twice in two months, probably more than he'd had Dylan with him for the past year prior to that, with the only son that he had the ability to use for manipulation due to his age.

I don't see that having anything to do with his great love for his son, but rather a "oh yeah I'll show you" attitude towards his ex-wife. He wasn't about to just let her move on with her life the easy way, even though it appears she just let him have most of their joint assets. He was still meeting with his attorney even after the court ordered Thanksgiving visit. Was he lining up his next visit before this one had even begun? Did he have to go through his attorney for each visit after ER was awarded custody?

Even in that video when asked to speak directly to Dylan the only thing he had to say directly to him was "my prayers are with you". He then went on to try to explain that no one really knows how much "that boy" meant to him. Why is that? Why would he think he needed to defend himself about that? Because he hadn't really shown that for the better part of Dylan's life? And his voice cracked but his eyes did not well up and he quickly changed focus. The last time I saw a man do that it was Todd Smith, speaking about his missing wife Katrina before her body was found. He is now under arrest and awaiting trial for her death.

FWIW I do not think that MR set out to deliberately harm his son. I just don't think he really had much patience for the situation as it was, I think he was using Dylan as a pawn, and I think Dylan knew that. I just don't see a reunion between them, particularily when it starts off badly with the delayed flight and then denying Dylan the one plan that he was looking forward to, as being anything but hostile. And Dylan had shown as early as 9yrs old that he wasn't afraid to take on his Dad when he didn't agree with something he did.

MOO

 

[SCHMAE]

Thank you so much for this information! I used to explain this often, but I gave up. A lot of people think that just because a child is missing there should be an Amber Alert. I just couldn't get it across that unless there is information concerning a potential SUSPECT and a VEHICLE description then there is NOTHING to broadcast on the Amber Alert! The point of the Amber alerts is for the public to be on the lookout for a particular vehicle/suspect...not just to notify the public that a child is missing.

No problem.
I actually live near where Amber Hagerman lived and the case is etched in my memory. It's possible folks out of state did not get as much info as the Texas residents did about the case. Amber was SEEN being snatched by a person in a small dark truck. So that eye witness account gave LE the first tip of the case,, it was an ABDUCTION without a doubt . So when her mother lobbied for the new law it was with Amber's case in mind. It is not for missing children. It is for abducted children. That may seem unfair but it is just the way this particular law was set up !

 

[vasportsmom]

I can't speak for CO but here in VA it wouldn't have cost MR a penny to relinquish his rights to allow the step parent adoption. Many years ago my ex agreed to give up his rights to my oldest to avoid paying CS. My husband and I hired an attorney that filed the paperwork with the court and my ex showed up on the appointed to date to tell the judge that yes, he wanted to surrender his rights and was doing so willing. Five minutes later he was on his way. My husband & I waited the required 60 days then appeared in the judge's chamber with our son to answer a few questions and she signed off on the adoption. That was it.

On the flip side I have a set of nieces that are 15 & 10. My brother hasn't laid eyes on them since the baby was 3 weeks. He is behind over 60k in CS, has been in prisons for a couple years and will remain there for 5 more but he refuses to allow the only father they have ever known to adopt them and the local courts refuse to terminate his rights without consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LotusPawprint]

Has anyone sleuthed the records AZGrandma said we could? Why are we taking her word as gospel? Am I missing something? Geez, I'm so over this thread. My heart breaks for Dylan and his family, ALL of his family. I just can't take the witch hunt anymore. It's quite sickening. MOO

I believe anyone who wants to do that sleuthing is free to do so. IMO.
Nobody's forcing anyone to take anyone else's word as gospel -- clearly it isn't effective.
If you see violations of TOS in the thread, shouldn't you alert a mod? Or are you just venting that you're over the thread and sick of the "witch hunt"?

 

[scorekeeper]

Has anyone sleuthed the records AZGrandma said we could? Why are we taking her word as gospel? Am I missing something? Geez, I'm so over this thread. My heart breaks for Dylan and his family, ALL of his family. I just can't take the witch hunt anymore. It's quite sickening. MOO

that's why I asked twice if anyone knew where azgrandma and mark lived while they were married....

 

[catswhiskers]

Thank you so much for this information! I used to explain this often, but I gave up. A lot of people think that just because a child is missing there should be an Amber Alert. I just couldn't get it across that unless there is information concerning a potential SUSPECT and a VEHICLE description then there is NOTHING to broadcast on the Amber Alert! The point of the Amber alerts is for the public to be on the lookout for a particular vehicle/suspect...not just to notify the public that a child is missing.

Yes that does explain the requirements (thanks SCHMAE for your original post above too), but it seems it's not always strictly adhered to? I followed Jessica Ridgeway's case here and could have sworn an Amber Alert was issued for her. Maybe the title of the thread confused me -
CO - AMBER ALERT: Jessica Ridgeway, 10, Westminster, 5 Oct 2012 - #1 as the report quoted says one wasn't issued at that point.
This is the Amber Alert I mentioned earlier - as quoted by someone on the FMDR fb page. It is one that doesn't appear to link any suspect or vehicle:

http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/AmberExternalFCServlet?act=retAmberCase&amberId=10989

 

[SmoothOperator]

moo is that there's no MR conspiracy here..moo but this individual is of little to zero meaning of the vast majority of the population and people aren't just making up these ol' falsehoods on this individual..

moo is that his own flesh and blood grown sons words and actions have IMO spoken the loudest as to the individual MR is.. there's just no "Everybody's-lying-on-Mark" Conspiracy bandwagon going on here..its reminiscent of TI in the Morgan Ingram case where everyone who speaks out about the truth have all sold their souls to the "Lets-Crucify-the-victim-of-this-case" Conspiracy bandwagon..moo both are similar in that there must be a nefrious motivated bandwagon of some type that's out for the blood of the innocent...

my point is there's no one out for blood and in both cases IMO the desire is the same...the truth to shine through and in Dylan's case specifically let that truth lead to finding him and serving firmly and swiftly justice on the ass of those responsible ...

 

[SCHMAE]

Yes that does explain the requirements (thanks SCHMAE for your original post above too), but it seems it's not always strictly adhered to? I followed Jessica Ridgeway's case here and could have sworn an Amber Alert was issued for her. Maybe the title of the thread confused me -
CO - AMBER ALERT: Jessica Ridgeway, 10, Westminster, 5 Oct 2012 - #1 as the report quoted says one wasn't issued at that point.
This is the Amber Alert I mentioned earlier - as quoted by someone on the FMDR fb page. It is one that doesn't appear to link any suspect or vehicle:

http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/AmberExternalFCServlet?act=retAmberCase&amberId=10989

I see your point. Perhaps because of their age and they were seen walking but never arrived at their destination, it was an ' assumed' abduction as in LE determined very quickly someone had to have taken them away from the road. With Dylan no one knows where he was last seen or could have been taken from and I do think initially they thought he may have wandered off , hitchhiked or ran away. By the time they ruled out those things, *( if they have yet) an amber alert was too late.

 

[mmmagique]

Which could explain his attempt at directing the search to the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We also don't know if either of the parents have life insurance on Dylan. (I'm sorry to bring that up, but it's def. something LE should know.)

 

[NC Analyzer]

Yes that does explain the requirements (thanks SCHMAE for your original post above too), but it seems it's not always strictly adhered to? I followed Jessica Ridgeway's case here and could have sworn an Amber Alert was issued for her. Maybe the title of the thread confused me -
CO - AMBER ALERT: Jessica Ridgeway, 10, Westminster, 5 Oct 2012 - #1 as the report quoted says one wasn't issued at that point.
This is the Amber Alert I mentioned earlier - as quoted by someone on the FMDR fb page. It is one that doesn't appear to link any suspect or vehicle:

http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/AmberExternalFCServlet?act=retAmberCase&amberId=10989

Well, sorry to sound negative and cynical but TN tends to live in some kind of weird bubble and IMO, they make up the rules as they go. The cases I follow out of that state are representative of LE fumbles, bumbles and just plain BAD investigating.

 

[mmmagique]

You know... maybe one reason he didn't pay it, could be because he was kept from seeing them, for whatever reason. This happened with one family I knew. The dad refused to pay child support because his ex would never let him see them and she got away with it for years. He did end up having to pay it, plus the back support he owed, but he had no choice, they took it out of his pay.
OTOH, my DIL always let her son visit his dad, never refused him his visitation rights and he rarely paid child support. She had him arrested time after time. He would pay the current and maybe a little extra, but not all that he owed. Her lawyer finally filed papers and she got all the back support, eventually.
There are always two sides to every story. Three, if you want to count the truth as one side. And I'm not referring to this case, just saying.

I'm not arguing with you, but at several legal websites I belong to, it is stressed over and over that child support is not a "ticket" to see the child(ren).

You can't keep the children from the other parent due to lack of child support, and you can't withhold child support because the other parent is committing contempt of court by withholding visitation. (legally anyway)