Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was also a church volunteer. Seeing her name in the same paragraph as youth ministry is sickening: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/St--Paul-s-Memorial-Church-Weekly-Update-for-August-23--2018.html?soid=1124684668493&aid=zdXIklZcnZA

Unfortunate however there are no rules or screening requirements for either.

As a former children's ministry volunteer, that is not entirely true. Yes, most churches don't screen volunteers like preschools etc do, but most do have safeguards in place, for example, in our church every person who works with children needs to take a securely abuse awareness course and no adult is allowed to be alone with children, there always need to be 2 or more adults with any children's activity. In addition, married or partnered couples are not allowed to be alone with children. Meaning my husband and I never taught a Sunday school class together and if we did, we would have needed an additional person there.

I think it varies, my church required fingerprint background checks for Sunday School teachers.

Nothing would have red flagged her prior to 2019, and since conviction was vacated on appeal (thanks Eppa!!!), likely nothing would after. There is value in checks, but, it is somewhat limited.

Most churches don't aggressively ensure there are always 2 adults around when they are working with children. As much as Boy Scouts is maligned, when my kids joined their troop was rabid about this rule. Even emails had to include more than one adult.

For over 20 years, our church has fingerprinted/background checked anyone working with children and definitely have the 2 person rule.

My mother volunteers at her church. All she has to do it sit there so that there is more than one adult with the kids.

Any of these approaches helps minimize opportunities and may deter those who will look for softer targets. Bless your mom for contributing her time.

[Anonymous]

Oh, god. I've lived in C'ville/RVA area for 30+ years now. Don't know this woman and just learned this story here, but we are the same age and a quick FB search shows I have multiple friends in common with this woman, all of us with same-age children. Too close for comfort. This is why I hardly ever leave my kid alone with anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was also a church volunteer. Seeing her name in the same paragraph as youth ministry is sickening: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/St--Paul-s-Memorial-Church-Weekly-Update-for-August-23--2018.html?soid=1124684668493&aid=zdXIklZcnZA

Unfortunate however there are no rules or screening requirements for either.

As a former children's ministry volunteer, that is not entirely true. Yes, most churches don't screen volunteers like preschools etc do, but most do have safeguards in place, for example, in our church every person who works with children needs to take a securely abuse awareness course and no adult is allowed to be alone with children, there always need to be 2 or more adults with any children's activity. In addition, married or partnered couples are not allowed to be alone with children. Meaning my husband and I never taught a Sunday school class together and if we did, we would have needed an additional person there.

I think it varies, my church required fingerprint background checks for Sunday School teachers.

Nothing would have red flagged her prior to 2019, and since conviction was vacated on appeal (thanks Eppa!!!), likely nothing would after. There is value in checks, but, it is somewhat limited.

Most churches don't aggressively ensure there are always 2 adults around when they are working with children. As much as Boy Scouts is maligned, when my kids joined their troop was rabid about this rule. Even emails had to include more than one adult.

For over 20 years, our church has fingerprinted/background checked anyone working with children and definitely have the 2 person rule.

Someone upthread was appalled at churches carrying insurance against abuse and molestation. I work for a small youth-serving non-profit and the process we have needed to go through to get that insurance has been rigorous. Among our rules:
-all staff and volunteers need to have a full background check with fingerprints
-we all have to complete a four hour training about recognizing abuse and mandatory reporting (I think this is really important because once you have a critical mass of adults trained to recognize red flags and empowered to say something that provides an important safeguard)
-no adult is to be alone with a child/teen (including not being alone in a bathroom together, not giving any rides to students, not arranging off site meet ups, not being friends on social media, not showing special favor to one youth)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

But the stuff at the country clubs are more insidious and there are more open secrets people shrug off. Like the NC family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

But the stuff at the country clubs are more insidious and there are more open secrets people shrug off. Like the NC family.

Oh stop... either cite your sources or stop making things up.

You do know that country clubs exist that aren't strictly "WASPY" ones, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, god. I've lived in C'ville/RVA area for 30+ years now. Don't know this woman and just learned this story here, but we are the same age and a quick FB search shows I have multiple friends in common with this woman, all of us with same-age children. Too close for comfort. This is why I hardly ever leave my kid alone with anyone.

Not a bad strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.c-ville.com/in-brief-56

Look at the mention on this Charlottesville news site posted yesterday. It is buried at the bottom and her name is spelled as Hunter, as if they don’t know exactly who she is - a Hunton. Laughable.

Everyone was ranting that it had not been covered, then it is, and there is still complaining. Hunton is how her name is spelled in the documents, it was discussed upthread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, god. I've lived in C'ville/RVA area for 30+ years now. Don't know this woman and just learned this story here, but we are the same age and a quick FB search shows I have multiple friends in common with this woman, all of us with same-age children. Too close for comfort. This is why I hardly ever leave my kid alone with anyone.

Same with me. 3 mutual friends and my husband has even more. We informed a mutual friend of this story, who said "Oh god she used to watch [so and so]'s kids."

As far as leaving your kid alone with people, obviously there are no guarantees. But no one has said, "Oh, she seemed so normal!" Everyone is saying she seemed off, crazy, unkempt, was spiraling, etc. We can only pray that people were clued in not to leave their kids with her when it really mattered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, god. I've lived in C'ville/RVA area for 30+ years now. Don't know this woman and just learned this story here, but we are the same age and a quick FB search shows I have multiple friends in common with this woman, all of us with same-age children. Too close for comfort. This is why I hardly ever leave my kid alone with anyone.

Same with me. 3 mutual friends and my husband has even more. We informed a mutual friend of this story, who said "Oh god she used to watch [so and so]'s kids."

As far as leaving your kid alone with people, obviously there are no guarantees. But no one has said, "Oh, she seemed so normal!" Everyone is saying she seemed off, crazy, unkempt, was spiraling, etc. We can only pray that people were clued in not to leave their kids with her when it really mattered.

Elsewhere people HAVE said she seemed so normal, maybe on this thread, too. And FB photos suggest the same. No guarantees, be vigilant and follow your gut about people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.c-ville.com/in-brief-56

Look at the mention on this Charlottesville news site posted yesterday. It is buried at the bottom and her name is spelled as Hunter, as if they don’t know exactly who she is - a Hunton. Laughable.

Everyone was ranting that it had not been covered, then it is, and there is still complaining. Hunton is how her name is spelled in the documents, it was discussed upthread.

Oh come on. It’s clearly buried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

But the stuff at the country clubs are more insidious and there are more open secrets people shrug off. Like the NC family.

Oh stop... either cite your sources or stop making things up.

You do know that country clubs exist that aren't strictly "WASPY" ones, right?

And from context you know the non-WASPY ones (your term) aren’t the ones applicable here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

I think you mean LC are more likely to be caught and convicted. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

I think you mean LC are more likely to be caught and convicted. Big difference.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, god. I've lived in C'ville/RVA area for 30+ years now. Don't know this woman and just learned this story here, but we are the same age and a quick FB search shows I have multiple friends in common with this woman, all of us with same-age children. Too close for comfort. This is why I hardly ever leave my kid alone with anyone.

Same with me. 3 mutual friends and my husband has even more. We informed a mutual friend of this story, who said "Oh god she used to watch [so and so]'s kids."

As far as leaving your kid alone with people, obviously there are no guarantees. But no one has said, "Oh, she seemed so normal!" Everyone is saying she seemed off, crazy, unkempt, was spiraling, etc. We can only pray that people were clued in not to leave their kids with her when it really mattered.

A lot of parents are going to be having that conversation, Hoppe and her children appear to have been very social in FB images. She has been around a LOT of kids in work, parent and volunteer settings. Hopefully her IRL victims are few but it seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do so many people on this board know this woman?

That is not disturbing to anyone?

Given the number of UC HHI and trust fund babies on this site, how is this a surprise?? (Tangential thought:maybe UC perps like this woman are the reason so many UC posters insist they are “only” UMC or MC. There is FALSE sense that being middle class makes you some how safer to be around than LC or UC people.)

Well, statistically speaking, violent crime is disproportionately committed by LC people. Individual MC and UC may be dangerous, sure, but you're much more likely to be violently assaulted by someone at a swap meet as opposed to a country club.

But the stuff at the country clubs are more insidious and there are more open secrets people shrug off. Like the NC family.

Oh stop... either cite your sources or stop making things up.

You do know that country clubs exist that aren't strictly "WASPY" ones, right?

And from context you know the non-WASPY ones (your term) aren’t the ones applicable here.

PP is saying "could never be MY country club" and is intentionally missing the entire point. It could be your country club. Awareness is prevention.