California law slammed as ‘Epstein loophole’ after ex-politician avoids child abuse trial

A judge has approved a mental health diversion program for former Kern County politician Zack Scrivner, allowing him to avoid trial on felony child abuse charges. The decision has sparked fierce criticism from California lawmakers and child advocates.

Scrivner was charged in February following allegations of inappropriate behavior with one of his children in 2024. The court’s ruling permits him to undergo treatment instead of facing a potential prison sentence.

Lawmakers from both parties have condemned the verdict. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains referred to the legal provision as an "Epstein loophole," arguing that the law is being exploited to help child offenders escape justice.

State laws amended in 2018 and 2022 failed to exclude child abuse from diversion programs and restricted the discretionary power of judges. Other controversial cases have emerged under these rules, including a Pasadena doctor accused of intentionally driving his family off a cliff.

Prosecutors report that the number of approved diversion cases has increased significantly since the laws were modified.

The Zack Scrivner case has emerged as a high-stakes flashpoint for California’s internal struggle over criminal justice reform, exposing a widening rift between progressive rehabilitation efforts and the fundamental demands of public safety. At the heart of the controversy is a tension between a legal philosophy that prioritizes mental health treatment and a statutory mandate to ensure accountability for egregious offenses, particularly those involving the exploitation of minors.

While the state’s original 2018 diversion statute was rooted in a compassionate intent to address underlying pathology, subsequent 2022 amendments have effectively curtailed judicial discretion. By requiring prosecutors to provide "clear and convincing evidence" that a mental disorder was not a motivating factor in a crime, the legislature has established an exceptionally high bar for the state. In practice, this shift has inverted the traditional legal framework, placing a heavy burden of proof on victims and prosecutors to disprove a nexus between a defendant’s mental state and their alleged criminal conduct.

Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains’ branding of this legal mechanism as the "Epstein Loophole" is a calculated and potent political maneuver. By tethering a technical state-level policy debate to a notorious national symbol of institutional failure and elite impunity, Bains has recast the law as a shield for the well-connected. The framing suggests that despite its benevolent origins, the statute has inadvertently institutionalized a path for privileged defendants to evade criminal consequences.

The mounting opposition from district attorneys and sheriffs’ associations signals a deepening institutional fracture. As law enforcement officials break with Sacramento lawmakers, the Scrivner case appears to be the catalyst for an imminent legislative showdown aimed at recalibrating California’s diversion laws and restoring the balance between clinical intervention and criminal accountability.

While this incident does not have a direct or exclusive impact on the Vietnamese-American community, it remains a serious concern for families throughout California. For those living in Little Saigon and working across the state’s nail salon industry, the case highlights critical issues surrounding public safety and the equity of the state's justice system—particularly when it comes to the protection of our children.