If I wasn't laid up, I never would have seen this two part show. I'm not typically interested in this flavor of "entertainment", but as a social worker, I do have some interest in family crisis.

I was disgusted to see Dr. Phil claim that he only cares about getting the word out about a missing boy and then completely buy into the mother's accusations by arranging an immediate polygraph test with experts that would appear to be the best and only available to him. His ego has to be one of the more inflated I've witnessed, but that (and the constant use of the problems of his guests in the promotion of his book) aside, I have other issues.

If this is supposed to be about a missing child, there were questions that I felt would have been more productive to answer in lieu of what happened instead, which appeared to be a total preoccupation with blaming the father for what seems to be mostly his lack of emotion. I don't believe his wife was being truthful when she claimed to have attempted to call him. I think they are both exhibit strange behavior. I had to agree with the host that it wouldn't matter if my feet were on fire, I would have been speaking to my ex in person within a few hours, not texting about my missing son. They both seem to have a problem with this part of their version of the story.

My unanswered questions are...

• If the mail lady states she saw two boys, who is the other one? Dr Phil, in all his splendor, would appear to be able to put out a call to locate a second boy. Was any attempt made to verify that there was or wasn't one?
• If she recognized a visiting mail customer's son, why would she not also recognize a neighborhood child? Has anyone come forward to claim to be or know the identity of the other boy?
• If the father did not visit the neighbor's family the first day, did he speak with any of his son's friends' families EVER? Did the mother? The police? What is their story about the communication of the night before?
• Six miles does not seem an impossible trip on foot for a bored 13 year old, but does seem quite unlikely IF the child had no plans to meet with his friend or any knowledge he would actually be home when he got there.
• We have the ex wives of the man, his ex girlfriend and even his mail woman, but where are the other people in the area who know him? 
• Is there any corroboration of the mail woman's story about seeing two boys? Anything else? Like strangers in the neighborhood? If Dr Phil is actually interested in finding the child, why is his query so limited? 
• Cell phone records would clear up the question about whether the wife tried to call or not and would certainly lend to her credibility to find she had tried.... or demolish it if she didn't. Where was Dr Phil's magic on that one?
• Did the father's alibi check out for the morning his son went missing? For the night before, since 9:30 is the last time anyone outside of the family heard from him?
• Where is the information that might tell the general public the places that the boy might have gone on foot? What are the kid's interests? In involvement socially i the father's community? All I heard was he texts a lot.
• if the mother was so very worried about the character of her ex husband, had she ever tried to limit or revoke visitation with the father? is it only now that she seems to have concerns about how safe it was for he son to visit, and if so, why now?
• If the father believes the mother could be involved and Dr. Phil is truly as neutral as he claims to be, why then was the mother not asked to give a polygraph as well? He says he has no bias, but he quite obviously does - towards whatever would make the best TV, is my guess.
• What was the motive supposed to be for the father wanting to punish the mother by harming the child? How long has their divorce been over and did anything happen recently that might give rise to new anger and make him want to now want to retaliate?
• The boy was 13- 14. He would have some say in visitation in most jurisdictions. Had he expressed an absolute negative attitude about visiting his father and if so, was that not taken into consideration or explored by the mother and her representing council?

I felt his goal was far more to sensationalize the riff between the Wineguards and to poke his viewers with little sticks rather than to find the boy. An investigating officer would have been better guest than just those who think the father is shady. Why was all the focus on the father?

I  have worked for years with families in crisis. I am completely neutral as to whether the father is involved, especially if it is mostly based upon his emotional reactions (or lack of). There are as many varied responses to grief and loss, to fear and worry, as there are people who exhibit them. I do have to say that I think (and can only speculate) that if it was my child, about the 3rd time someone suggested I was involved, and I was NOT involved, I would have been insanely outraged. I did find the father strangely calm, but that is hardly proof of any wrong doing.

If it had been me in place of the father, I think I also would have hesitated to submit to a polygraph on the  talk show host's word that he is "the best". They are not perfect, and what kind of disaster would it have been to fail it, for whatever reason, on national television, even if it isn't admissible in court? It does happen. I would have been leery myself.

Using the tragedy of others as television entertainment is disgusting in general, but to twist it in this manner is unethical. I'll be renting movies from Netflix for the rest of my down time. Thanks anyway, Dr. Phil.

I thought i was the only one who noticed that the mail carrier and ex-girlfriend were the same o.O

You also totally missed the fact that the father was the one to notify her by text. why did he not call her? and why would she call him? she already knew him to be a lyre  i would have called local LE to get my information, not that cold-hart-ed syco. what is your opinion on why he has not helped to look for Dylan? At first he says "no one wanted me to help" i wouldn't care! id say "here is all the money i have and ill be back with more after i hold some fund raisers and sell everything i dont need, lets put it toward a reward" then later he says he IS doing everything he can. Like what? he did not do anything involving any of the events they held for Dylan, so what has he done. OH yes, he had to work. why? his son is gone, he is not providing for him anymore is he is not using his pay to help find him. So the fact that he needed that days worth of pay was more important than his sons birthday? The was the only event he even bothered making up an excuse for. i promise you thin guy did it. not only was he involved but he killed him. not a doubt in my mind. I always no from the first few moments of listening to and watching some one if they are guilty or not, to date i have never, ever, not once, in real life, on Dr.Phil and on many other shows ware they like to use the polygraph a lot.

He did call the mother out on not calling the father and he called her out on the reason her son did not want to visit his father. so you said he was unfair, but gave no real reason as to why you think this is the case. He simply had more inconsistencies to ask the father about because he had more in his story. Im sorry but you are completely wrong. he had more to question the father on so he did. she was saying why do i always have to be the one because she wanted to know why he never not one time showed any concern for his son, and he repeats himself in pointing his finger at her over and over but with no reasons to back it up. Dr.Phil asked if her really believed she had something to do with it because he first pointed out she would have had to fallow him to his fathers house with help and take him. that is a lot less likely than the father taking him from his own house. the father simply has more to answer to to show he was not involved. i wont reiterate all the reasons he looks guilty as they where plain as day on the show and also clearly stated over and over by myself and many others. you have no bases for this statement at all. none what so ever.

I had not thought about that. i watched this show over and over and came up with a thousand reasons the father was guilty and why he did it but could not think of a way to prove it, find evedence or figure out ware the child may be.

I guess cops don't watch Dr.Phil or they would see he is lying right away. Dr.Phil you have connections with the FBI and LE cant you motivate the cops in that town? Or maybe hire a privet investigator? You did so to find a teen in the middle east, three children in London and to look in to an online romance scam why not for Dylan?

I just spent the day catching up on your shows :-) & watching this episode has me really angry.  If he says that the mail carrier (which is his ex girlfriend) seen Dylan later in the day with a friend, who was that friend and was he really walking with anyone that day?

This man never showed one bit of concern over his son missing.  It's remarkable that the authorities aren't looking at him.  He has NO concern.  If my son was missing and they were looking at me, I'd be like, come at me.  I don't care.  Just find my baby.  He's just defending himself and not worried about where his son is.  His attitude towards his first son is disgusting!

My heart goes out to Dylans mother and brother. I hope he is brought home to them safely. Please Dr Phil, dont stop in the search for Dylan. He needs to be brought home. Please continue looking for answers.1. Could authorities   question the mail carriers statement ? (which never has been officially verified by authorities)Mark repeatedly stated he was not the last to see Dylan. He  was referring to the mail carriers statement of having seen him and a friend walking the day he went missing, while driving along her route. 1. Could authorities check the accuracy of this?  * Ask the friend 6miles away if indeed he was even on that road. The area Mark lives was said to be extremely remote. The friend he was "supposed" to visit lived 6 miles away.The next person nearby,  the friends Grandmother lives approx. 20mi from Marks. Not a lot of folks live up there. ...was Dylan and his friend truly walking along the road that morning?   Or was this just an attempt to provide Mark an Alibi?2.  Question the postal service-  Is 7:30am -11:00am typically the mail delivery time up there? Dr Phil please continue to search for the truth.   Now that Mark is rested up, sober from the Jim Beam and had had time to unwind, could Dr Phil ask Mark if he would consent ( a third time ) to taking a polygraph test with Mr Trimarco?   Mr Trimarco,  as Dr Phil stated numerous times, could be a great benefit to Mark. If Mark is indeed truthful, the polygraph will clear his name. The unfair accusations and finger pointing Mark claims surely would stop. But if Mark knows more than he says, hopefully the test could provide more answers. Mr Trimarco as we were told is one of, if not the best at this, and  he trains the FBI.  After an hour and a 1/2 of testing,  new information is bound to unfold...My deepest sympathy for Dylans family. I hope  some unforseen accident did not occur.....Why did all text messaging stop to his friend and mother at 9:30pm the night before?  ( Dylan was described as a heavy texter and always'' on his phone) I have a 12 yr old who is also a big texter, so I know what that is like. Is this the time period when it all began? Was Mark angry Dylan contacted his mother?

The truth will be told eventually, but please continue to search for answers. ..Dylan deserves it !I

My heart goes out to Dylans mother and brother. I hope he is brought home to them safely. Please Dr Phil, dont stop in the search for Dylan. He needs to be brought home. Please continue looking for answers.1. Could authorities   question the mail carriers statement ? (which never has been officially verified by authorities)Mark repeatedly stated he was not the last to see Dylan. He  was referring to the mail carriers statement of having seen Dylan and a friend walking the day he went missing, while driving along her route. 1. Could authorities check the accuracy of this?  * Ask the friend 6miles away if indeed he was even on that road. The area Mark lives was said to be extremely remote. The friend he was "supposed" to visit lived 6 miles away.The next person nearby,  the friends Grandmother lives approx. 20mi from Marks. Not a lot of folks live up there. ...was Dylan and his friend truly walking along the road that morning?   Or was this just an attempt to provide Mark an Alibi? 2.  Question the postal service-  Is 7:30am -11:00am typically the mail delivery time up there? 

Dr Phil, please continue to search for the truth.   Now that Mark is rested up, sober from the Jim Beam and had had time to unwind,  Dr Phil, could you ask Mark if he would consent ( a third time ) to take a polygraph test with Mr Trimarco?   Mr Trimarco,  as Dr Phil stated numerous times, could be a great benefit to Mark. If Mark is indeed truthful, the polygraph will clear his name. The unfair accusations and finger pointing Mark claims surely would stop. But if Mark knows more than he says, the test could provide more answers. Mr Trimarco as we were told is one of, if not the best at this, and  he trains the FBI.  After an hour and a 1/2 of testing,  new information is bound to unfold...My deepest sympathy for Dylans family. I hope  some unforseen accident did not occur.....Why did all text messaging stop to his friend and mother at 9:30pm the night before?  ( Dylan was described as a heavy texter and always'' on his phone) I have a 12 yr old who is also a big texter, so I know what that is like. Is this the time period when it all began? ...... Was Mark angry Dylan contacted his mother, which maybe lead to a verbal exchange  then an argument? 


The truth will unfold eventually, lets keep searching for answers...Dylan deserves it.