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

[YidArmyRach]

What if Mark had full custody of Dylan and Elaine only got visitation once in awhile because she had moved away and wanted to take him from all his friends and everything he knew?

Would it be fair for Mark and Dylan to say that because he has his friends in town and he has spent most of his holidays with Mark that Elaine isn't entitled to any??? And that if she was awarded alternate holidays for visitation that it would be extremely selfish and inconsiderate of her to want to spend time with her son??? Would we be saying that she's a douchbag because she actually went to court and showed an interest in having time with her child and that Mark was the wronged parent because he didn't have his child for a holiday when he had so many others??? And what if Elaine had a time demanding job as to why Mark got primary custody to begin with, is she being heartless and selfish because she traveled a lot for her job and couldn't see Dylan as often as she would have liked??

There is nothing that proves Mark did not see his child when they lived in town. We have the mother's word to go on as to how often they saw each other, but that's all relative, isn't it? If she sees the kid every day and Mark sees him every other weekend, and part of the time on holidays, then that's not near as often as she had him, but that doesn't mean it wasn't often by visitation standards for most parents.

Fairness is every other weekend, and every other holiday. But because ELAINE moved away, MARK could not do that. He lost every other weekend. Now he's not even suppose to be allowed to see his child every other holiday because it's considered "selfish" and "inconsiderate" to whatever plans he had BEFORE ELAINE moved? And that's Mark's fault??? How??? JMO

Thanks for posting that - this is exactly how I see it.

ER moved away taking Dylan away from his home and all his friends. From what I have read, ER made no effort to ensure that Dylan saw his friends back home. MR gets a court-awarded visit to have his son stay, and suddenly he's the baddie because he wants to spend time with Dylan, rather than dropping Dylan off to his friends' house as soon as he arrives. On the one hand, he is being accused of not seeing Dylan enough, and on the other hand, being called selfish when he does attempt to see him. The bloke can't win!!

In my opinion, ER should have made more of an effort to have Dylan seeing his friends, seeing as it was her who moved him away from them. I find it a bit unfair that Mark is expected to give up his custody time with Dylan, so that Dylan can see his friends...... IF this is what happened. All MOO.

 

[asyousay]

MR is not close to any of his children from what i can gather and in his first marriage he gave up the rights so he did not have to pay any back payments. So not exactly a saint and so from what i have seen it no wonder Elaine moved away for a better life with her sons.

I do not blame her for bettering herself and her family's life . And from all account Dylan was happy in his new home and town.

 

[Darcyline]

I know that pretty much everything MR does or did or doesn't do or didn't do will be read through a negative light because people have determined him to be guilty, but I also hope everyone realizes that managing custody and visitation with kids can be very difficult. Sometimes custody needs to be re-negotiated, sometimes kids want to spend more time with one parent over the other, sometimes a parent doesn't get to see a kid as much as they would like, sometimes you have to be "selfish and mean" and demand your holiday even if you aren't Susie Homemaker and have a turkey defrosting as we speak. This type of stuff happens even with two loving, caring, not abusive parents. We all do the best we can and sometimes situations are a lot more grey than we think. Some of the generalizations just seem a bit hasty.

I understand that everyone really just wants Dylan home though and anything may be a clue.

 

[kkdj]

Because I feel he didn't bother to take full advantage of his parental rights until she moved. That's my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not just your opinion but elaines words as well!

 

[asyousay]

I think that is one of the disturbing aspects of the discussion about this case for me. I know that pretty much everything MR does or did or doesn't do or didn't do will be read through a negative light because people have determined him to be guilty, but I also hope everyone realizes that managing custody and visitation with kids can be very difficult. Sometimes custody needs to be re-negotiated, sometimes kids want to spend more time with one parent over the other, sometimes a parent doesn't get to see a kid as much as they would like, sometimes you have to be "selfish and mean" and demand your holiday even if you aren't Susie Homemaker and have a turkey defrosting as we speak. This type of stuff happens even with two loving, caring, not abusive parents. We all do the best we can and sometimes situations are a lot more grey than we think. Some of the generalizations just seem a bit hasty.

I understand that everyone really just wants Dylan home though and anything may be a clue.

I do not think it is generalizations when he has 2 ex wife's who say he could of hurt Dylan .

He does not seem to have a close relationship with his other children and who gives up rights as a parent over money , which he has done?!

I am just pointing out from my perspective that he is not Mr Snow White here.

 

[BritsKate]

I don't blame MR for wanting to see Dylan or enforcing his rights to visitation but in the same vein I also don't blame Elaine for moving Dylan. Presumably she believed doing so would be in Dylan's best interests and the court apparently agreed.

Courts don't grant relocations just because a parent wants to move on a whim. A lot of consideration is usually afforded such a decision - everything from extended family to extracurricular activities and sometimes crime rates and educational standards too. Sometimes guardian ad litems are appointed, sometimes home studies are conducted, and sometimes even psych evals are ordered. A relocation order isn't generally fly by night but based on a multitude of factors based on best interest presumption.

(Admittedly though I am probably way over-sensitive to the moving kids away from everything they know debate. )

 

[Darcyline]

I do not think it is generalizations when he has 2 ex wife's who say he could of hurt Dylan .

He does not seem to have a close relationship with his other children and who gives up rights as a parent over money , which he has done?!

I am just pointing out from my perspective that he is not Mr Snow White here.

I don't think anyone in the world (even MR) would say he is totally innocent or Snow White. I was more focusing on the generalizations about "what dads do" or what caring parents do for their kids. Like, it seems nit-picky to me to attack him over not having a full Thanksgiving Turkey dinner cooked and waiting because "That is what loving parents do" or bashing MR for having a job where he has to travel a lot (which, in this economy not everyone can have a cushy easy office job near their home-that just isn't reality or life right now for a lot of Americans).
I am just saying I realize everything MR does is going to be cast as wrong or bad, but I hope in everyday life everyone realizes that sometimes grey areas exist or compromises have to be made because life is rarely simple or easy. It doesn't automatically make people bad parents either.

 

[Seajay]

I don't blame MR for wanting to see Dylan or enforcing his rights to visitation but in the same vein I also don't blame Elaine for moving Dylan. Presumably she believed doing so would be in Dylan's best interests and the court apparently agreed.
Courts don't grant relocations just because a parent wants to move on a whim. A lot of consideration is usually afforded such a decision - everything from extended family to extracurricular activities and sometimes crime rates and educational standards too. Sometimes guardian ad litems are appointed, sometimes home studies are conducted, and sometimes even psych evals are ordered. A relocation order isn't generally fly by night but based on a multitude of factors based on best interest presumption.

(Admittedly though I am probably way over-sensitive to the moving kids away from everything they know debate. )

BBM: I wasn't saying her moving was on a whim, because it's been established as fact that she moved to take a better job position, with better pay. That's fine. I don't think it was in Dylan's best interest per se, other than she was better able to be there all the time based on her job as opposed to Mark's. If he had a different type of job, where he could be home and not travel, it probably would have been harder to convince a judge to let her take Dylan so far away. But maybe not because it WAS for her job, and to be with her new/old honey. I think it part, that was motive for the move, to be near MH. They ARE living together now, aren't they??

So there are two factors for her to move to CS that doesn't have anything to do with Dylan. Her job and MH.

Custodial issues should not dictate where a parent lives when it's based of betterment of a job. But at the same time, it shouldn't negate the NCP right to visitation either. JMO

 

[nursebeeme]

knock it off right now: the good parent bad parent argument.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think anyone in the world (even MR) would say he is totally innocent or Snow White. I was more focusing on the generalizations about "what dads do" or what caring parents do for their kids. Like, it seems nit-picky to me to attack him over not having a full Thanksgiving Turkey dinner cooked and waiting because "That is what loving parents do" or bashing MR for having a job where he has to travel a lot (which, in this economy not everyone can have a cushy easy office job near their home-that just isn't reality or life right now for a lot of Americans).
I am just saying I realize everything MR does is going to be cast as wrong or bad, but I hope in everyday life everyone realizes that sometimes grey areas exist or compromises have to be made because life is rarely simple or easy. It doesn't automatically make people bad parents either.

I don't think it is fair to say that anything he does is going to be seen as wrong.

I would not think it was wrong at all if he was out and about and seeking media
nonstop, to talk about his missing son. If he had been doing this all along for two months now, to the best of his ability, we would not be likely to be analyzing every word spoken about him by his ex, iMO. But we only have silence, and memories of what ER has said.

 

[mmmagique]

ok nurse.

I think we need a list of things we're still allowed to discuss. I'm beginning to have trouble remembering everything we've been told we can't. (That is not snark. I am genuinely having trouble remembering all the things we've been warned off of here.)

 

[TxLady2]

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.

Not really, it's just different LE have different ways of saying things.

Years ago, they were not as careful about naming people suspects and they got ripped apart by the media and the public, and also named in several lawsuits over it, when it turned out their 'supects' were actually innocent. So nowadays they are very careful not to use that term unless they're ready to slap the cuffs on them and take them to jail.

Some LE will say they aren't 'calling' someone a suspect or POI, others will say they're not 'naming' them, still others will say they do not 'consider' them a POI. It's all basically the same thing, just different terminology.

 

[asyousay]

knock it off right now: the good parent bad parent argument.

Really sorry , i was just trying to show why i think MR had issues that could of lead to something happening .

 

[kkdj]

knock it off right now: the good parent bad parent argument.

Oops! Sorry!

 

[Confusion]

I don't think it is fair to say that anything he does is going to be seen as wrong.

I would not think it was wrong at all if he was out and about and seeking media
nonstop, to talk about his missing son. If he had been doing this all along for two months now, to the best of his ability, we would not be likely to be analyzing every word spoken about him by his ex, iMO. But we only have silence, and memories of what ER has said.

Everybody may not see it as wrong, but I do believe some would. When he did talk to the press, all people did was pick apart everything he said, accused him of being drunk, and said he was doing it for attention and/or to try looking less guilty. Anything he says that conflicts with what his ex says is automatically stated to be a lie. I wouldn't speak to any reporters if I were him, but I probably wouldn't anyway.:twocents:

 

[balaney]

My son is 13 and resembles Dylan. This case hits home with me. My son has a best friend lwho lived 1/2 mile from our home with his parents, older sister and baby brother. Perfectly normal family in an upperclass area. Last summer the wife took the kids 800 miles away to visit her dad and never came back. Her son would call my son ten times a day saying they were coming back soon. School started and they never returned. The dad was peeved. He did weir things like quitting his job, locked his doors and let the mail pile up. They did not divorce due to religion. At thanksgiving the family returned home for a visit and the boy did not even go in to the house. He ran directly to our house. His mom came to get him insisting he see his dad. He left for an hour then snuck back to ou house. He said he hates his dad and will not stay there. We compromised and he slept at our house and spent thanksgiving meal time with his family. Point is he is 13 and left his dads house with no coat without his phone. He walked to our house after 10 at night when his parents thought he was in bed for the night. His father has not shown any violent tendancies but after the family returned to her dads after the holiday he did try to kill himself. My husband and I have discussed this family and our fear of what may happen. He is the type that would kill himself and all involved. The neighbors feel the same way and keep an eye on him and the house. The neighbors next door to him sold their house two weeks ago and moved. Said they are afraid he will explode. The family was supposed to return for two weeks at Christmas but never showed up. My sons friend says he hates his father and will run away if they make him visit. BUT he would run here. Boys do not just run away to nowhere. If Dylan did not run to his friends house IMO he did not run anywhere.

 

[nursebeeme]

ok nurse.

I think we need a list of things we're still allowed to discuss. I'm beginning to have trouble remembering everything we've been told we can't. (That is not snark. I am genuinely having trouble remembering all the things we've been warned off of here.)

the problem is not with what is being discussed it is with HOW it is being discussed. The rules are always the same.

You cannot call family members "bad parents" that is name calling

The rules are as usual with further clarification on how Mr. Redwine can be discussed after the opening post by our co owner, SoSueMe.



eta: when a conversation has been warned off, for instance the argument about what Dylan wore to bed... it was for how it was being discussed... not the content. I hope that makes sense. If anyone has a question please pm a mod. If you see a post that you think is not appropriate DO NOT RESPOND; HIT THE ALERT BUTTON.

 

[asyousay]

Everybody may not see it as wrong, but I do believe some would. When he did talk to the press, all people did was pick apart everything he said, accused him of being drunk, and said he was doing it for attention and/or to try looking less guilty. Anything he says that conflicts with what his ex says is automatically stated to be a lie. I wouldn't speak to any reporters if I were him, but I probably wouldn't anyway.:twocents:

Because IMO , i do not see why Elaine would lie. She has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and so i think she is as truthful as she can be .

 

[mmmagique]

the problem is not with what is being discussed it is with HOW it is being discussed. The rules are always the same.

You cannot call family members "bad parents" that is name calling

The rules are as usual with further clarification on how Mr. Redwine can be discussed after the opening post by our co owner, SoSueMe.



eta: when a conversation has been warned off, for instance the argument about what Dylan wore to bed... it was for how it was being discussed... not the content. I hope that makes sense. If anyone has a question please pm a mod. If you see a post that you think is not appropriate DO NOT RESPOND; HIT THE ALERT BUTTON.

Ok, thank you.

So, (and I AM sorry for bugging you...I'm just easily confused) as long as we're respectful of others, we can talk about the fourth of July incident, PI's and whether or not it's unusual that MR didn't plan anything for the holiday he fought for? (and I'm sure there's more I forgot)

Someone needs to hold a press conference or talk to Dr. Phil or something...

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Yesterday they pointed out a page that had a lot more "likes" than they did, and basically asked what they were doing wrong that they didn't have that many. Facebook is nice to help get the word out (somewhat) and for prayers and support, but they need more than FB (imo)

Exactly. They posted on the page that 750k had viewed it in the first month of the case. That might sound like a big number, but it really isn't. The lowest rated TV show brings in like 500k. A segment on Today, GMA, Nancy Grace, and Judge Jeanine would tell a few million people about Dylan.

750k viewed it in the first month, but there were probably only 3000 "likes" at that time. You need to "like" a page to track it, unless you plan on bookmarking it. So I feel like a concern should be; Why is the % of people "liking" the page so small compared to how many are viewing it? 3000 likes in the first month compared to 750k viewers...That's less than 1/2 of 1%! So a lot of people are coming across the page, and going about their day. They are still seeing Dylan's face, so that is a plus, but still.