CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #24

[asyousay]

there has never been a LEO press conference.

They have given quotes to the media but that is it.

So basically there has really been nothing official other than the flier.

Thank You , is it normal that they have never done a press conference when a child is missing ?

 

[asyousay]

I just hope the fact Elaine is not speaking out is there is more going on then we know.

I am honestly amazed by how silent it has gone on this case and unless she has been told not to speak out i would be out there trying to get on the news and radio and do whatever it took to get my message out there.

I just do not get the total silence .

 

[nursebeeme]

Thank You , is it normal that they have never done a press conference when a child is missing ?

no.. not in my experience

(esp considering at first they thought he could be lost in the woods somewhere)

 

[pinkfly]

Sadly, I think this case has gone cold.

Perhaps in the Spring something will float to the surface.

.

 

[NC Analyzer]

BBM:

he works out of town and is away for long periods of time

I sincerely doubt he worked 7 days a week and never came back to Bayfield. There are many people who work in his industry. I'm pretty sure most of them make time to see their kids. Unless they don't want to.

 

[ThePhantom]

I just wish the statement would have been made that MR conclusively passed his polygraph -- even though I know polygraphs are not perfect, inadmissible, etc

 

[nursebeeme]

I sincerely doubt he worked 7 days a week and never came back to Bayfield. There are many people who work in his industry. I'm pretty sure most of them make time to see their kids. Unless they don't want to.

we don't know his work schedule or what the visitation schedule was.. only that he worked out of town for long periods and that a family friend said there were no problems with the agreement

It is possible that his work interfered with his scheduled time.

That was the point I was making.

We don't know enough at all imhoo to intimate that it happened because he didn't want to see his son.

 

[Abby Normal Again]

It is times like this, that I like direct quotes. In doing a google search I could not find direct quotes on the use of the word "consider" and "considering" in regard to Mark being not a suspect. I did find this:

From Nov. 29th - "The Sheriff's Office is not calling Mark Redwine a suspect," Dan Bender, La Plata County Sheriff's Office Public Information Officer, said. "However, since that house was the last place Dylan was seen, it is only prudent to do a more thorough search of that house and property for any information that can help direct us to Dylan." http://www.9news.com/news/article/302104/339/Feds-search-missing-teens-dads-home

IMO they are not going to call him a suspect if he is co-operating & talking and maybe not even then. Once they call him a suspect, it is my understanding he is treated differently with regard to rights (but I am not sure how that applies). Considering & calling are two very different things IMO.

Authorities executed a search warrant last week at the house of Mark Redwine, the father of Dylan, but the father is not considered a suspect, said Capt. Jim Ezzell, chief investigator with the La Plata County Sheriff’s Office

It's not quotation marks, but it's directly attributed and the more recent terminology used.
http://durangoherald.com/article/20121203/NEWS01/121209881/-1/s

 

[Confusion]

we don't know his work schedule or what the visitation schedule was.. only that he worked out of town for long periods and that a family friend said there were no problems with the agreement

It is possible that his work interfered with his scheduled time.

That was the point I was making.

We don't know enough at all imhoo to intimate that it happened because he didn't want to see his son.

I do know that many times guys who work for companies like that rent houses/apartments in the area where they work. Sometimes they are far enough from home to make it hard to get home more than once or twice a month. I've had neighbors who worked in the field, and some said they only saw their families one weekend a month most of the time, and occasionally two. There were several who rented houses, but even more just stayed in motels wherever they worked.

 

[asyousay]

I do not understand the hang up on the terminology used here.

At the moment there are absolutely no named suspects , yet that does not mean there are none. Its just we do not know .

 

[NC Analyzer]

we don't know his work schedule or what the visitation schedule was.. only that he worked out of town for long periods and that a family friend said there were no problems with the agreement

It is possible that his work interfered with his scheduled time.

That was the point I was making.

We don't know enough at all imhoo to intimate that it happened because he didn't want to see his son.

IF this was the case and IF there was a visitation agreement in effect that didn't take his schedule conflicts into consideration, MR could have easily petitioned to modify the terms. It isn't like Family Court is a stranger to this guy.
There is NO excuse for not seeing your kids. MOO

 

[NC Analyzer]

I do know that many times guys who work for companies like that rent houses/apartments in the area where they work. Sometimes they are far enough from home to make it hard to get home more than once or twice a month. I've had neighbors who worked in the field, and some said they only saw their families one weekend a month most of the time, and occasionally two. There were several who rented houses, but even more just stayed in motels wherever they worked.

Well thank you for making my point. Fact is, those guys DID see their kids routinely. Maybe not as often as they wanted, but at least you're not describing their time as "rarely saw their kids".

 

[nursebeeme]

I do not understand the hang up on the terminology used here.

At the moment there are absolutely no named suspects , yet that does not mean there are none. Its just we do not know .

jumping off your post:

Yes it is time to move on from discussing the word suspect. No one has been named a suspect.

So everyone please move along to another topic of discussion.

 

[Chili Fries]

edit: in deference to nurse...nevermind.

 

[Abby Normal Again]

I do not understand the hang up on the terminology used here.

At the moment there are absolutely no named suspects , yet that does not mean there are none. Its just we do not know .

I agree. The people with information aren't saying, so we don't know.

 

[Salem]

See my comments in blue

The likely scenario is that MR and ER probably always shared joint custody with physical custody granted to ER (this is an assumption contrary to the facts as we have them). This doesn't mean MR was entitled to 50% of Dylan's time unless a visitation agreement originally specified it. (Again, an assumption because it doesn't mean that MR wasn't entitled to 50%).
The parent with physical custody typically has more time with the child and weekends, one-two days weekly, every other holiday and time during summer vacation is typically spent with the non-(physical)custodial parent. This would be a Friend of the Court standard. (But not always the case where the parents both live in the same school district and either parent can continue the child's activities without disruption).
After ER moved, the court granted ER permission to continue (again, "continue" is an assumption contrary to the facts we have, but probably a correct assumption) physical custody in the new location, but the visitation schedule probably needed to be spelled out. Without documentation, MR would not have the authority to see Dylan whenever he wanted because even though there is a "typical" visitation schedule through FOC, without a court order, MR couldn't just demand a visit whenever he saw fit. In other words, MR had visitation rights, but they had to be spelled out to be enforceable.
The question was why MR didn't see Dylan when he lived in the same area and I think that was a good question. (Again, an assumption, contrary to what we know - they shared custody 50/50 - so why assume that MR did not see Dylan?) Now if ER didn't allow Dylan to see MR when they were living in Bayfield, MR would have needed to request court ordered visitation then as well. But obviously there was no problem and ER didn't force MR into court to enforce his rights back then so why did MR find it necessary after the move? (Because, as a father, maybe he didn't want his son to be so far away, making it more difficult for them to spend time together). To aggravate ER? Power and control issues? What exactly prompted him to request a formal visitation schedule at this time? (These questions and implications are frustrating to me. Why is it that if a father attempts to ensure that he is not excluded from his child's life - it becomes about everything BUT the fact that maybe the father loves his child? I don't understand that - fathers are parents too.) It sounds to me like he could have seen Dylan any time over the years but ER said he didn't see him much. So why did he feel the need to go back to court just because she moved? Did he think she would refuse if he simply said he'd like to have Dylan for Thanksgiving? Nothing reported about her refusing visits previously. Maybe he knew Dylan didn't want to visit and ER wasn't going to force Dylan to see dad. Was it Dylan's reluctance that prompted MR to turn to the courts?

I'm also having a hard time with the assumption that Dylan was reluctant to visit with his dad. Whatever the reluctance was, the family court judge did not seem to think that visitation should be stopped. However, I am also keeping an open mind here because I know some family courts judges that do not make good decisions.

Also, not picking on you NC - just some questions and trying to point out where I can't make a leap from one thing to another. I am a firm believer that a child needs 2 parents - a mom and a dad. I support fathers that take the time to ensure a relationship with their children and I never give a mom a straight pass, just because she is a mom.

More and more women are proving to be involved in abuse, child , and violent crimes. Being female does not give you a pass in my book. This DOES NOT in anyway, mean I don't believe ER or trust her instincts, it just means I try to be careful.

Salem

ETA: I have to run - back soon!

 

[NC Analyzer]

See my comments in blue

I'm also having a hard time with the assumption that Dylan was reluctant to visit with his dad. Whatever the reluctance was, the family court judge did not seem to think that visitation should be stopped. However, I am also keeping an open mind here because I know some family courts judges that do not make good decisions.

Also, not picking on you NC - just some questions and trying to point out where I can't make a leap from one thing to another. I am a firm believer that a child needs 2 parents - a mom and a dad. I support fathers that take the time to ensure a relationship with their children and I never give a mom a straight pass, just because she is a mom.

More and more women are proving to be involved in abuse, child , and violent crimes. Being female does not give you a pass in my book. This DOES NOT in anyway, mean I don't believe ER or trust her instincts, it just means I try to be careful.

Salem

ETA: I have to run - back soon!

I've always supported father's rights and I agree that every child deserves 2 parents.
I think that's why I tend to be a bit sensitive when a custodial parent reveals that a child's father didn't take the time to visit his child more than ER stated MR visited with Dylan. :furious:
I believe her.

 

[mck16]

I've always supported father's rights and I agree that every child deserves 2 parents.
I think that's why I tend to be a bit sensitive when a custodial parent reveals that a child's father didn't take the time to visit his child more than ER stated MR visited with Dylan. :furious:
I believe her.

But didn't she also say it was because of his work? jmo

 

[NC Analyzer]

But didn't she also say it was because of his work? jmo

And once again I will say that unless he worked 24/7 and never returned to Bayfield he had NO EXCUSE for not seeing his son.
Some men make a lot of excuses for not seeing their kids. I'm just not one to give them a pass.
Men have always worked. It's not an excuse.

 

[MrsPC]

The combination of those 2 things --

• 
  MR rarely exercising his visitation rights

• Dylan not wanting to spend Thanksgiving with MR

it reflects a definite strain in the father/son relationship IMO.