In a case that has attracted significant public attention, a California Superior Court judge approved mental health diversion for Zack Scrivner, a Kern County resident involved in a criminal case that includes allegations of child abuse and possession of assault weapons. This decision has ignited a statewide debate over the application of mental health diversion laws and the pursuit of justice.
The incident that led to Scrivner’s charges occurred in April 2024, when law enforcement responded to his Tehachapi residence. Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer, Scrivner's aunt, had reported that he was armed and behaving dangerously. The scene police encountered reportedly involved Scrivner and his four children, one of whom had stabbed him during the altercation. Subsequent investigation alleged inappropriate conduct by Scrivner towards his preteen daughter while under the influence of various substances. A search of his home revealed an arsenal of 30 firearms and psychedelic mushrooms among other items.
Despite the serious nature of the charges, in December 2025, Judge Stephanie R. Childers granted mental health diversion based on arguments that Scrivner's diagnosed alcohol-use disorder, depression, and anxiety warranted treatment over incarceration. The ruling was met with backlash from prosecutors and prompted immediate calls for legislative reform, with particular focus on the expanded eligibility for mental health diversion potentially shielding severe offenders.
Assemblymember Dr. Jasmeet Bains and State Sen. Shannon Grove have been vocal critics of the judge’s decision. Bains likened the diversion to a loophole and referenced high-profile plea deals for sexual offenders, while Grove introduced Senate Bill 1373 to restrict violent offenders from qualifying for mental health diversion. Additional proposed measures include the Epstein Loophole Act and the SCRIVNER Act, named after the case in question, aimed at safeguarding victims and ensuring accountability.
The ruling's dissenters also include Scrivner’s own family, who have publicly condemned the decision and the current state of the mental health diversion system. At a Sacramento press conference, Scrivner’s son and wife expressed their disappointment, emphasizing the need for a system that does not fail victims in their plea for justice.
The California Department of Justice has not accepted the ruling without challenge, filing a writ of mandate to overturn the approval of diversion, which is currently pending before the 5th District Court of Appeal. As legislative efforts progress, the case continues to serve as a focal point for a broader discussion on mental health in the criminal justice system and the appropriate balance between treatment and punishment.
