Public criticism continues to mount after a Kern County judge granted mental health diversion to former county supervisor Zack Scrivner, a decision that pauses his criminal prosecution and could ultimately result in the dismissal of charges if he successfully completes court-ordered treatment.
The ruling has sparked widespread backlash online, including comments on various social media platforms and a growing Change.org petition calling for the decision to be appealed or reviewed. Critics argue the outcome reflects a failure of accountability in a case involving serious allegations of abuse against a minor.
Federal involvement speculation
Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains’ (D-Delano) office announced Thursday that U.S. Attorney Eric Grant is visiting Kern County.
“I am encouraged that US Attorney Grant and his team are in town just weeks after I requested their intervention in the criminal case against Zach Scrivner. I am confident a federal review of the facts will support the filing of child molestation charges. These are the charges that should have been filed by the DOJ and would have prevented the abuse of mental health diversion that has occurred. I am hopeful local law enforcement will fully cooperate with a federal investigation as I prepare legislation to close this Epstein Loophole in the future.”
Additionally, according to Sheriff Donny Youngblood during an interview with 23ABC News Bakersfield, investigative materials related to the Scrivner case, including all videos and reports, have been provided to state authorities, the California Department of Justice, and the California Attorney General’s Office. The FBI now also has the investigative reports for federal review.
California’s Attorney General’s office had previously taken over the prosecution of this case because of a conflict of interest involving the local district attorney, Cynthia Zimmer, who is Scrivner’s aunt. In a statement after the diversion ruling, the state attorney general’s office said it opposed the decision and was reviewing its options.
What happened in the Scrivner case
In 2025, Scrivner was charged with multiple felony counts, including child abuse, after authorities said he allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct with his adolescent daughter. Despite the gravity of the allegations, prosecutors did not file formal sexual assault charges, saying they could not prove specific legal elements required under those statutes.
On December 19, Judge Stephanie R. Childers granted a motion to allow Scrivner to enter a mental health diversion program instead of facing trial or potential jail time.
Mental health diversion pauses criminal proceedings so a defendant can receive treatment for a diagnosed mental health disorder. If the individual successfully completes the program and complies with its requirements, charges may be dismissed. The program is meant to help defendants whose criminal conduct is meaningfully connected to mental health conditions obtain rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
Why the decision has drawn criticism
What has made the Scrivner case especially controversial is the fact that the underlying allegations involve a minor and that some lawmakers, including members of both political parties, say the diversion law in this situation was not what the Legislature intended.
Assemblymember Bains (D-Delano), a physician, described the diversion decision as an “Epstein loophole,” referencing convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and asserting that the law should not be used to effectively sidestep prosecution in cases of alleged child abuse or assault.
“There is no mental health condition that forces someone to touch a child inappropriately,” said Dr. Bains. “Not to mention allegedly doing so while being in possession of illegal firearms. If these allegations are true and treatment is warranted, that care can be delivered behind bars. If the allegations are not true, why ask for diversion?”
Other lawmakers, such as state Senator Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), have publicly said the program must never be allowed to “erode accountability for the most serious and violent crimes against children.”
The outcry is rooted in changes to California’s mental health diversion statute in 2018 and subsequent amendments, which lawmakers say broadened eligibility in ways that courts have flagged as limiting judicial discretion. One 2022 amendment directed courts to allow diversion when a diagnosed mental health condition significantly contributed to the offense unless prosecutors can prove otherwise with clear and convincing evidence. Critics say that has led judges to approve diversion in cases they believe the law was not originally meant to cover.
“Even if the DOJ was unsure they could prove every charge in court, they should still have brought charges reflecting the evidence in their complaint that alleges Mr. Scrivner ‘got into bed with and subsequently touched [a child] inappropriately.’ Failing to do so may result in no jury, no jail time, and no justice,” commented Bains.
Petition seeks appeal of diversion ruling
An online petition on Change.org titled “Appeal mental health diversion decision for Zack Scrivner case” has gathered approximately 3,020 signatures in recent weeks. The petition asks state officials, including the California attorney general and the state solicitor general, to take action to appeal the diversion decision or to examine how the case was handled and charged.
However, there is no legal mechanism that automatically triggers a review or reversal of a court decision based on the number of petition signatures. Petitions like this serve as a form of public advocacy, meant to show community concern and urge officials to consider action, but they do not carry legal force. Any formal appeal or review must be pursued through established legal procedures.
Who ultimately decides
The authority to grant mental health diversion rests with the Superior Court judge overseeing the case. A judge’s ruling on diversion is a judicial decision that can be appealed by prosecutors or potentially reviewed by higher courts.
Public reaction and next steps
Outrage over the diversion decision has not been limited to lawmakers and advocates. Community members have taken to social platforms and online petitions to voice their dissatisfaction.
On the Change.org petition urging an appeal of the diversion ruling, supporters described the decision as a miscarriage of justice. One signer from Ridgecrest wrote that Scrivner’s conduct should not be characterized as a mental health issue and argued that justice for the child victims has been sidelined, framing the ruling as harmful to those directly affected.
Another commenter from Hesperia shared a personal experience with childhood abuse, underscoring the emotional impact such cases have on survivors and their belief that accountability was not met in this instance. A third comment from a Bakersfield resident criticized what they see as inequality in how the justice system treats powerful individuals compared with other defendants, particularly in cases involving serious harm to children.
The case is set for a progress hearing on January 29, and could return to full criminal proceedings if Scrivner fails to meet the program’s requirements.
