FirstAlerts

Ventura man sentenced to 12 years for repeated sexual abuse of child

Timothy Wade Hensley was sentenced to 12 years in state prison for continuous sexual abuse of a child between 2016 and 2021.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 8:21 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 31, 2026, 7:50 p.m. ETWritten Aug 31, 2026, 8:22 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 2h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 31, 2026, 8:38 p.m. ET — checked 2h ago.

Timothy Wade Hensley of Ventura was to for continuous sexual abuse of a child, the reported. The sentence was handed down on August 31, 2026, according to keyt.com. Prosecutors said Hensley sexually assaulted the child between 2016 and 2021, first at a home in Los Angeles County and later at a home they shared in Thousand Oaks. The abuse was reported by keyt.com.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 31, 2026, 8:21 p.m. ETFirst report

    Ventura man sentenced to 12 years for repeated sexual abuse of child

    Timothy Wade Hensley of Ventura was sentenced to twelve years in state prison on August 31, 2026, according to the Ventura County District Attorney's Office as reported by KEYT.

    Hensley was charged with continuous sexual abuse. The abuse occurred between 2016 and 2021 at a home in Los Angeles County and then at a home in Thousand Oaks, according to KEYT.

    The case has been resolved with sentencing; no further proceedings are pending.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:21current

    First published.

  2. Version 11 Sept 2026, 00:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.