Judge Finds Zach Scrivner in Compliance With Diversion; Charges Have Not Yet Been Dismissed

A short hearing produces a narrow finding

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A Kern County judge found former Supervisor Zach Scrivner in compliance with his mental-health diversion program during a brief Thursday hearing, according to 23ABC. The court set the next hearing for October 22. The ruling means Scrivner remains on the treatment path authorized by the court. It does not mean the criminal charges have already been dismissed or that a jury resolved the underlying allegations.

Court records cited by 23ABC say Scrivner was charged in February 2025 with three counts of child cruelty and two assault-weapons counts following an April 2024 investigation at his Tehachapi home. He entered diversion later in 2025. Those charges are accusations. Because the case moved into diversion before trial, the public record does not contain a guilty verdict establishing the allegations as fact.

What California diversion can do

California Penal Code section 1001.36 allows eligible defendants to receive pretrial mental-health treatment when statutory conditions are met. Courts consider factors involving diagnosis, the relationship between a disorder and the charged conduct, amenability to treatment and public-safety risk. The program is not available in every case. A judge’s eligibility decision is distinct from a trial on guilt.

Successful completion can lead a court to dismiss charges and seal arrest records as provided by law. Noncompliance or changed circumstances can produce different consequences, including reinstatement of criminal proceedings. That is why the latest finding is a checkpoint rather than the end. Reporting that Scrivner ‘remains on track’ describes the procedural direction, not a dismissal already entered.

Public criticism does not decide the case

Community members gathered outside the Metro Justice Building and argued that an ordinary defendant might not receive the same outcome. Their concerns about equality and transparency are newsworthy political speech. They are not evidence that the judge violated the law. Assessing unequal treatment requires comparable cases, eligibility facts and rulings—not only the prominence of this defendant.

The case has drawn extra attention because Scrivner was an elected supervisor and because Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer is his aunt. State prosecutors handled the matter to avoid the local conflict. That transfer addresses one institutional concern but does not erase public interest in how the court applies diversion standards.

The October hearing is another checkpoint

Privacy creates another tension. Mental-health treatment details can be sensitive even when compliance is discussed in open court. The public can reasonably seek the legal basis for decisions without treating unfiled family allegations or speculation as proven. Careful coverage should quote the statutory framework and the court’s actual orders.

On October 22, the key question will again be procedural: whether Scrivner remains in compliance and what the judge orders next. Unless the court formally dismisses the charges or returns the case to prosecution, neither outcome should be announced in advance. The narrow, accurate headline today is that diversion continues and the criminal case has not yet reached final resolution.

What this means for readers

Readers should use court records and named reporting, avoid circulating private family details beyond the public record and distinguish the legal status of a charge from the requirements of treatment.

About the photograph

The featured image is an authentic public-domain historical photograph of Kern County's former courthouse; it does not depict Scrivner, the current hearing or the Metro Justice Building.

Limits and what to watch

A compliance finding is not a trial verdict, acquittal, dismissal or finding that the criminal allegations were true, while filed charges are accusations rather than convictions

The next development to watch is the October 22 hearing, continued compliance and any future order completing diversion, dismissing charges or returning the case to ordinary proceedings.