BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — Former Kern County Supervisor Zack Scrivner has been granted his motion for mental health diversion following arguments from his attorney H.A. Sala and the Attorney General's Office.
The motion was filed after the AG's Office filed their criminal complaint stating Scrivner, under the influence of mind-altering substances, inappropriately touched a child on April 23, 2024. The complaint also alleged he illegally possessed AK-47 and AR-15 style weapons.
Scrivner is charged with three felony counts of child cruelty and two felony counts of illegal possession of assault rifles.
During the hearing, Sala pointed out that Scrivner was not charged with any sex crimes in this case, nor did the AG's Office offer any report to refute their mental health diagnoses.
"Scrivner was diagnosed with depression, anxiety and alcohol use disorders, and saw medical professionals before the incident," Sala said.
The prosecutor said after the hearing that it was disappointing.
In her ruling, the judge said there is a strong legislative preference for mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible. She said Scrivner did provide evidence qualifying for a mental health disorder, and it was a significant factor in the offense to the doctor who examined him.
Moving forward, Scrivner will have to continue with treatment at a psychiatric wellness clinic, maintain sobriety and undergo random testing. A status hearing is scheduled for January 29.
"If he's in compliance with treatment and the court is satisfied through periodic evaluations, the charges will eventually be dismissed," Sala said.
Diversion can last up to two years, but it could be much shorter than that.
Everything regarding the case expect the criminal complaint sent by the CA Attorney General Office has been sealed, meaning no information will be provided.
Scriver's ex-wife, Christina, commented on the decision saying "today’s shocking decision was a heartbreaking miscarriage of justice for my family. I remain grounded in my belief in a loving and righteous God who knows the truth. I put myself and my children in His hands for protection, healing, and comfort.”
Also commenting on the decision was Lauren Skidmore, CEO of The Open Door Network which helps people impacted by domestic violence and sexual assault. She sent us this statement, in full:
“From the beginning, I had hoped that the Attorney General’s Office would have filed the appropriate charges. In regard to the children, the Attorney General’s Office charged three counts of Penal Code section 273a(a), felony child endangerment. Despite there being sufficient evidence to allege a violation of Penal Code section 288(a), child molestation, the Attorney General’s Office only filed a child endangerment with the basis of the endangerment being “sexual penetration.”
Had the Attorney General’s Office properly filed a violation of Penal Code section 288(a), Mr. Scrivner would not have been eligible for diversion. This is proof that the system is broken. The diversion program was not intended for an auspicious, powerful, elected official who has used his divorce, addiction and depression to excuse his physical and sexual assault of his children and avoid appropriate punishment.
There are no winners in this situation. These victims have lost hope in the judicial system and their father. They will forever suffer from the emotional scars of their father’s actions. This will not change by Mr. Scrivner receiving mental health treatment. Additionally, he has not upheld the mandates issued by the family court. He has left the mother of his children to financially, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically care for their children after this crime and years of alcoholism, drug-use, and domestic violence.
It is a sad day when the only consequence for a child abuser is a mental health diversion program. The Open Door Network will continue to speak out for victims who are not supported by this broken judicial system.”
The Office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta responding to Friday's court proceedings as well. A spokesperson for Bonta's office saying in a statement:
"This is a serious case given the nature of the conduct. We formally opposed the court taking this course, we disagree with the ruling, and we are reviewing our options."
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
Stay in Touch with Us Anytime, Anywhere:
