A former children’s ministry volunteer at Vineyard Anaheim, now the Dwelling Place, has been sentenced to nearly 125 years in prison for molesting girls as young as six years old, according to local authorities.
Todd Hartman, 41, of Newport Beach, was convicted earlier this month of multiple child sex crimes, according to a press release from the District Attorney’s Office in Orange County, California.
These include four felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a minor under the age of 14; two felony counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years or younger; two felony counts of lewd act upon a child 14 or 15; and one felony count of possession of child pornography, the district attorney’s office said.
Hartman volunteered at Vineyard Anaheim, now known as the Dwelling Place, in Anaheim, California. Hartman met many of his victims through his work at the church, according to the D.A.’s office.
The Roys Report (TRR) reached out to the Dwelling Place Church for comment but did not hear back prior to publication.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Healing What’s Within” by Chuck DeGroat. To donate, click here.
“Houses of worship should be safe havens from the evils of the world, but instead child predators transform them from a place of safety into a hunting ground for unsuspecting victims for their twisted sexual gratification,” Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said in the release.
Hartman’s various crimes occurred between 2009-2015, according to court records.
At that time, the church was still affiliated with Vineyard U.S.A., according to the D.A.’s press release. In 2022, Pastor Alan Scott removed the Vineyard Anaheim from Vineyard U.S.A., sparking controversy and a lawsuit.
Hartman’s history of abusing girls
In 2015, the Newport Beach Police Department served a search warrant at Hartman’s home and discovered he possessed hundreds of images and videos of child pornography, the press release said.
Hartman was also convicted of molesting a 12-year-old and a 14-year-old girl during a 2009 sleepover at the family home of one of the girls.
Additionally, the District Attorney’s office said that Hartman admitted to some of his crimes in 2016.
Hartman called the father of two of his victims and admitted to molesting one of the man’s daughters repeatedly. While the D.A. did not specify the dates of this abuse, it said Hartman’s assaults started when she was just six years old.
He had met the girl through his volunteer work at the church, according to the D.A.
Hartman was later convicted of molesting the girl’s younger sister, as well, and taking sexually suggestive photos of her while she sat on his lap.
Hartman was a volunteer at the church prior to 2015, according to a press release from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement that year.
Church leadership “changed Hartman’s responsibilities” because they were “concerned about him repeatedly pulling children on to his lap,” the press release said. The release did not clarify when exactly this occurred.
“No child should have the innocence of childhood robbed from them by anyone, much less someone they were led to believe they could trust,” Spritzer said.
Spritzer called Hartman a “predator who preyed on the most innocent of children.”
Despite Hartman’s 125-year sentence, he will be eligible for parole after he serves 20 years because of California’s elder parole law. The law makes felons, who are over the age of 50 and have served 20 years, eligible for parole.
Spritzer strongly criticized the “reckless and disgraceful” decisions of California legislatures that led to this law. He sympathized with the victims who will have to face the law’s “harsh reality.”
“When (Hartman) does come up for parole, we will do everything in our power as prosecutors to keep him behind bars where he undoubtedly belongs,” Spritzer said. “We will never leave the sides of our victims.”
Freelance journalist Liz Lykins writes for WORLD Magazine, Christianity Today, Ministry Watch, and other publications.
English 
Spanish
7 Responses
The state of California, where a child molester can be released from prison because they’re too old, but their DA in 2011 (Kamala Harris) pushed a bill through so a parent can be arrested and jailed because their chronically ill child missed school. Priorities, amiright?
Before regurgitating a Trump/Republican talking point, maybe take a second and read the full story. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program
I know it’s so easy to take the most extreme case of this truancy program and simply villainize Harris for it. But there’s much more to this bill. Funny, the bill was suppose to help school officials and law enforcement help hold parents accountable for not getting their kids to school. Hmmm… that seems like something the right would be all for. However, since you simply hate the other side, it’s so easy for you to cherry pick and misrepresent what actually happened. I understand, nuance and reason is not what Trump/Republicans care about. It’s ensuring they get power through any means necessary. Truthful or not. Sadly, I know you won’t even click on the link because it’s from NPR. And anything not found on Fox News or from Ben Shapiro is simply “evil mainstream media.”
Tim, thank you for providing the info. I had a feeling the original poster would not do so.
I can read just fine. Your condescension and assumptions do nothing but solidify in my mind that you fall for pretty words and continual broken promises. “If they’re not for us, they’re against us!” So in your mind, there’s only two ways to think in this world. How sad. That bill was nothing but grasping at straws to make it look like they actually care about individuals. If Kamala Harris, or any politician, actually cared about people, a dumb bill that can lead to the arrest of a mother who’s child is chronically ill because of a mix up would never have happened because they would be capable of seeing far field and taking into consideration how their progressive ideas may back fire in future. You take whatever they shovel in because they tell you it will be good and it will work. The government discriminates against poor people through bills like these and you have the audacity to call ME a misrepresenter of facts. You may take them at their word and believe their lies, but I have my eyes and ears wide open and can see the product(s) of their actions. THEY are not to be trusted because they can flex their pens and will over the people by convincing them the poison is the cure. You assume I’m just like the people you readily hate, and accuse me of hatred because I pointed out a flaw in your representative. All twisted up inside because someone doesn’t go along with what YOU think and have been convinced is the “right way.” Following the pied piper off the cliff.
I’m not from California. Can you provide some more details to explain this accusation? Did this bill pass? What was the bill’s number? What were the circumstances that (apparently) led to a bill such as this being needed? Is there a place to read the full text of this bill?
This comment is only tangentially related to the article, so I would appreciate more information if you are going to take the comment thread in another direction, away from the original subject reported in this article.
Google is your friend and you can pose all these questions there.
It’s easy to characterize the early release of offenders over 50 as symbolic of a permissive, liberal carceral philosophy. Fact is, it’s about laying off the cost of elder care outside CDCR, whose leaders are desperate to free that system of the expensive demands caring for elderly inmates places on it. CDCR doesn’t want to be the SNF of last resort. Its medical resources get stretched thin by the effects conditions within its walls have on those over age 50 and certainly those 60 and above. Much better, in its cynical view, to dump the inmate and his debilitated condition on Medi-Cal or (if the former inmate qualifies) Medicare. Nothing humanitarian about it at all. Prison cops don’t want to care for old, sick inmates, either, and lobbied hard for this arrangement.