Johnson County Kansas Chief Judge Alleged of Child Abuse in Kansas Case of Escalante vs. Droege; DCF is Motioned to Intervene as Plaintiff

JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS, 2024-Mar-10 — /EPR Network/ — The Kansas pro se father who just had a family court judge suspended off of 4 men’s civil cases now brings another troubling federal case against the chief judge of Johnson County judiciary and alleges child abuse on the leader of the courthouse.  This case and several others against the  Johnson County Judiciary is alleging large and deep amounts of family court corruption. The father has steadily placed defendant after defendant into the high court has now brought the Chief Judge Charles Droege under claims of Child Abuse in Escalante vs Droege 2:23-CV02536. The civil rights lawsuit alleges that Defendant Chief has been using unlawful practices to keep the father from litigating in his own cases after Droege suspended family court judge Paul Burmaster on November 16, 2023. One of the key grievances outlined in the lawsuit is Chief Judge Droege’s alleged unlawful deception in removing Judge Burmaster from the dad’s case.

The lawsuit claims Droege is keeping him from re-uniting with his daughters and purely out of retaliation constituting a form of deprivations for the children that is an indirect child abuse. The dad, , has brought forth several civil rights lawsuits, alleging corruption within the family court system.  One of the key grievances in Escalante vs. Droege is outlined in the lawsuit as Chief Judge Droege’s alleged unlawful deception in removing Judge Burmaster from the dad’s case and then concealing the entire civil proceeding to keep him from litigating in it to restore custody and justice that Burmaster tampered. At the heart of the lawsuit is a proof of of part of the fathers claim, in that Chief Judge Droege suspended Family Judge Burmaster from the dad’s cases and several other men on November 16, 2023.

This suspension, according to the lawsuit, has led to now Droege doing the same things as Burmaster.  Unlawful prevention of the dad from reestablishing a relationship with his children, essentially violating their constitutional rights to due process as Parent and Children under Amendment 14.S1.5.8.1. es. The lawsuit argues that in doing this, the Chief Judge is in affirmatives of going to the extent that he has caused violations of Kansas Supreme Court Rule 166, which pertains to time considerations for motions. And several of the the fathers cases show huge lapses of time and still not addressed.  JoCo Case 23-CV06700 Escalante v Burmaster is over 62 days late and its a Writ of Mandamus case seeking to terminate a Burmaster alleged fraud protective order in case 22CV03391.  And more compelling in the Protection Order case against the father is the dads motion to modify/terminate that is over 100 days late of being heard by the District Court.  The father states all those cases implicate Judge Burmaster of crimes from the bench.   The lawsuit also points to court order document 307, which is a final order of custody modification that Burmaster put in place Oct 16, 2023. The dad argues that this document was retaliatory in nature as a permanent custody modification  and includes provisions that require the use of Livingston Counseling LLC, a court contractor. However, Livingston Counseling director David Livingston reportedly is in admissible evidence as having contacted the district court months ago, expressing their unwillingness to be involved in the alleged misconduct of the judges. Despite this, Chief Judge Droege has supposedly refused to amend the order, thereby keeping the dad separated from his daughters. One of the notable aspects of this case is the involvement of Livingston Counseling LLC. While the court order directs the dad to seek counseling services from this contractor, Livingston Counseling has distanced itself from the proceedings, claiming misconduct on the part of the judges. The dad alleges that this disassociation by Livingston Counseling is further evidence of fraudulent behavior on the part of Chief Judge Droege.

The case is currently stayed in place and a motion to intervene the DCF as plaintiffs has been filed from the father. He is asking the state department of children and families to defend the Plaintiff children from large amounts of judicial misconduct and family court corruption.