With over 20 years of experience in the mental health field, my clinical work has been defined by a commitment to serving individuals in high-stakes, complex environments. My background spans a broad spectrum of care—from the front lines of the Legacy Emanuel Emergency Department (Trauma One) and the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC), to providing critical mitigation and re-entry services for the Federal Defenders of New York.
My professional journey has been built within diverse institutional settings, including the Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare (PSRB), the New York City Criminal Court, and youth correctional facilities like MacLaren and the Department of Youth Services. These roles have required a sophisticated blend of acute crisis intervention and long-term advocacy.
I am a dual-licensed clinician, holding an LCSW in Oregon and an LMSW in New York. I earned my Master of Social Work from Columbia University, where I minored in Law, after completing my Bachelor’s in Literature at Chapman University. This academic foundation in both law and the arts has fostered a deep appreciation for the role of creativity and diversity in therapy.
During the global pandemic, my experiences in the Emergency Department and the correctional system inspired me to become a Certified Yoga Teacher. This practice has not only served as a vital tool for my own resilience but also allows me to bring a grounded, holistic perspective to the high-pressure work of supporting first responders and crisis-impacted communities.
Resume:
MICHELLE MONTGOMERY, LCSW, LMSW
Clinical Social Worker | Crisis Intervention Specialist | Emergency Management Consultant
LICENSURE & EDUCATION
Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) | State of Oregon
Licensed Master Social Worker (LMSW) | State of New York
Master of Social Work (MSW) | Columbia University, New York, NY
Minor in Law – Columbia Law School
Bachelor of Arts in Literature | Chapman University, Orange, CA
Certified Yoga Teacher | Firelight Yoga Studio Portland, Oregon
CLINICAL & LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE
Private Practice & Federal Consultant | Oregon / Remote | 2021 – Present
-Provide specialized trauma-informed clinical services for Federal Wildland Firefighters and first responders.
-Consult on federal behavioral health contracts, focusing on responder resilience and crisis stabilization.
-Facilitate virtual and in-person psychotherapy focusing on life transitions, burnout, and high-acuity trauma.
Lead Mental Health Consultant | Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC) | Portland, OR
-Oversaw clinical operations and crisis stabilization within a high-volume correctional setting.
-Developed and facilitated the Mental Health and De-escalation training curriculum for Law Enforcement Deputies, bridging the gap between clinical safety and operational security.
Emergency Department Social Worker | Legacy Emanuel Medical Center (Trauma One) | Portland, OR
-Provided immediate psychiatric evaluation and crisis intervention in Oregon’s busiest Level 1 Trauma Center.
-Collaborated with multidisciplinary medical teams to manage acute psychiatric emergencies, domestic violence, and traumatic loss.
Mitigation & Re-entry Specialist | Federal Defenders of New York | New York, NY
-Provided clinical advocacy and sentencing mitigation for clients within the federal criminal justice system.
-Designed comprehensive re-entry plans, coordinating with federal courts and community resources to reduce recidivism.
Clinical Social Worker | Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare (PSRB) | Portland, OR
-Managed specialized caseloads for individuals under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, focusing on community reintegration and forensic monitoring.
Additional Clinical Experience:
New York City Criminal Court: Court-based clinical assessment and diversion.
MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility / Department of Youth Services: Intensive trauma work with justice-involved youth.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING & INTERESTS
Crisis Systems: Familiar with NIMS/ICS structures in emergency response settings.
Holistic Integration: Integration of yoga and somatic movement into traditional psychotherapy for nervous system regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE WORK
Policy Advocate & Legal Intern | New York Center for Juvenile Justice | New York, NY
-Provided critical research and editorial support for legal memoranda supporting the “Raise the Age” campaign, a successful legislative effort to increase the age of criminal responsibility in New York.
-Collaborated with legal and social work professionals to draft policy arguments that shifted the state’s approach to juvenile justice from a punitive to a developmental framework.
During my time with the New York Center for Juvenile Justice, I contributed to the research and editorial development of legal memoranda challenging the New York Juvenile Offender Law. At the time, New York was one of only two states that automatically prosecuted 16- and 17-year-olds as adults regardless of the offense.
Note: The Following is a research memorandum that was completed under the leadership of the Honorable Michael Corriero at the New York Center for Juvenile Justice (NYCJJ). As a Summer Associate for NYCJJ I facilitated (and was the main editor) on a group memorandum that focused on the constitutionality of the New York Juvenile Offender Law. The memorandum was twenty-seven-pages in length and (due to the page number requirement) I have only included the sections that I wrote in this writing sample. The entire memorandum is available upon request.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judge Michael Corriero
RE: Constitutionality of the New York Juvenile Offender Law
DATE: July 27, 2012
Short Answer
The New York Juvenile Offender Law (NYJOL) violates the Eighth Amendment by imposing a punishment on juveniles that is disproportionate to the crimes set forth under the law. According to the NYJOL, children as young as 13 can be tried as adults for certain enumerated crimes and punished within the adult criminal court system. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently upheld and expanded its jurisprudence with regards to the differential treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice context. Under Roper v. Simmons and its progeny, the Court has maintained that juveniles are inherently different than adults and therefore should not be subject to the same criminal punishments. This is largely due to research and studies, which indicate that juveniles have diminished culpability because they have less impulse control due to their brain development. Juveniles are also more susceptible to social influences that reduce their decision-making skills. Due to these inherent differences, the Court has held that youth are more capable of reform and should face adjudication as opposed to a criminal charge.
By overlooking critical aspects that separate children from adults, the NYJOL is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Juveniles that are punished under the NYJOL are penalized far beyond the statutory limits of the law. Youth are stigmatized in society as criminals, and face severe consequences upon release that limit their reintegration into society. Their punishment goes beyond any mandatory sentence of incarceration to become a sentence of life without life. Based on the decisions recently handed down the Supreme Court, children cannot be punished under a law which does not take into account these crucial developmental differences and goes beyond any bounds of proportionality based on the crimes committed.
New York’s Juvenile Offender Law also violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by having a disproportionate impact on youths of color. In order to withstand an equal protection argument, it must be demonstrated that a certain law disproportionately affects a protected class based on a shared characteristic. By relying on statistical evidence and a showing of intent, a defendant can override any compelling interest a State may have in permitting a discrepancy in the application of the law. Since McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court has made it especially difficult to overcome the burden of presenting evidence when challenging a criminal statute on racial grounds. The nature of the NYJOL and developments in studies regarding racial disparities since McCleskey can make a strong foundational argument under the Fourteenth Amendment. Statistics that show the disproportionate number of youths of color represented in the criminal justice system, as well as the systemic criminalization of these youths in society can work against the McCleskey hurdle. The stronger the case built by this evidence, the more difficult it is for the State to meet its own burden to defend the discrepancy based on its own interest in public safety and deterrence. By addressing these fundamental issues, it will be presented that the NYJOL violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
Statement of Facts
Michael, a fifteen-year-old African American male, was involved in a robbery where he was designated as the “lookout,” while a group of his friends robbed a pizza deliveryman. Records have indicated that Michael suffers from psychological and emotional issues that have never been properly addressed, and he has been in and out of foster care for most of his life. As a result of his involvement as a lookout, Michael was charged with robbery in the first degree. The judge who heard Michael’s case granted him with Youthful Offender treatment where he received five years of probation.
Seven months later, Michael committed the same crime by acting as the lookout for his friends who once again robbed a pizza man. A motion was filed to remove Michael’s case to Family Court. However, the prosecution argued that this would undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. The judge denied the removal motion and made it clear to the court that since Youthful Offender treatment is only available once for a felony, Michael, if found guilty, would be tried as an adult in criminal court and likely serve a mandatory sentence of one to ten years in prison.
Proportionality and Mandatory Sentencing
With the recent developments involving neuroscience and the evolving standards of decency, the national consensus has shifted back to the ideals that established the juvenile court at the turn of the century. Those ideals characterized children as “have[ing] a very special place in life which law should reflect.” In 1978, with the passing of the NYJOL, this restorative thinking was disregarded by the act of one child, Willie Bosket—whose violent acts prompted New York to enact a law that allowed juveniles to be tried as adults. The NYJOL ignored the unique place in society that legislatures previously reserved for children by creating mandatory sentencing for youth classified as Juvenile Offender Status.
New York State currently upholds that if a child is categorized as a Juvenile Offender by the court and the district attorney decides to prosecute, the child can be sentenced as an adult. According to the New York Penal Law once a child’s case progresses to the New York Supreme Court it will determine the length of incarceration based upon the conviction. For instance once a Juvenile Offender commits a felony the sentencing scheme ranges from life imprisonment for a class A felony of murder in the second degree, to a child serving up to four years in prison for a class D felony.
This sentencing procedure means that the court is required to sentence a juvenile to a minimum amount of four years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison, a sentencing scheme that was recently deemed unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. Currently a child can be convicted of a felony if they were an accessory to a crime, and in Kuntrell Jackson’s case (the 14-year-old referred to in the Miller v. Alabama case) since he performed the duties of a “lookout,” Kuntrell was charged with a felony. As the law currently stands it completely negates the extent of the child’s participation in the crime. Juveniles, who are often strongly influenced by peers, should not be held accountable for the actions of those they associate with.
It is important for the court to consider if the defendant had an intent to kill, as the circumstances of an offence are more important than the precise age or type of offense committed. It should also be considered that by imprisoning an offender for a long period of time alters the remainder of his life “by a forfeiture that is irrevocable,” and for adolescents the consequences are often more extreme. Children that are incarcerated during a prominent developmental stage in their life have a reduced chance of living a productive adult life. Although only spending five years in jail, those years could equate to a life that is altered forever.
By handing down a fixed or mandatory sentence to juveniles without being able to consider the circumstance of the crime—including the maturity and situation of the defendant, the NYJOL is in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Categorical bans on sentencing “based on mismatches between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of the penalty,” do not serve a restorative goal. Proportionality review is a constitutional requirement and the mandatory sentencing put into place by New York State precludes review, and therefore violates the Constitution. As Miller v. Alabama recently established into law, a mandatory sentence of death for juveniles is in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it excludes consideration of both the individual aspects of the crime and the offender. A jury, judge, or prosecutor cannot establish a reasoned response with mandatory sentencing because it does not present them with variable options. It is important for the court to look at the individual characteristics of the defendant, severity of the punishment, and consider whether the challenged punishment serve a legitimate corrective goal.
The nation’s first juvenile court was grounded with rehabilitative goals in mind, and New York needs to consider a juvenile system that perpetuates rehabilitation rather than a punitive approach. Studies have indicated that a juvenile system referred to as “The Missouri Program” has become one of the most successful models in the country due to its therapeutic approach. With treatment being the primary goal in the Missouri model, the program stresses individual responsibility in “the least restrictive environment possible without compromising public safety.” Missouri began with a broken system where “black eyes, battered faces, [and] broken noses among the boys” were a mainstay. It has become clear that Missouri broke the mold by creating a model that respected children rather than battered them. After the closure of its notorious Boonville Training School, Missouri began to make changes. The results were incomparable as “youth exiting other states’ juvenile corrections facilities are twice as likely (or more) to be re-incarcerated as youth served by Missouri DYS.”
Research has also shown that children experience more physical violence, sexual abuse, and are more susceptible to suicide while in adult institutions.Anytime you put a child in adult prison you deny them the opportunity to become fully functioning adults. It has become clear through research and legal analysis that a punitive approach requiring mandatory sentencing is not effective for youth who commit crime.
Conclusion
While addressing the Supreme Court during Miller v. Alabama, Assistant State Attorney General in Arkansas, Kent G. Holt, reminded the Justices that the punishment the defendant received for this crime “reinforces the sanctity of human life.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg responded by reminding Mr. Holt and the Court that the sanctity of human life can be applied to both the victim and the defendant: “You say the sanctity of human life, but you’re dealing with a 14-year-old being sentenced to life in prison, so he will die in prison without any hope. I mean, essentially, you’re making a 14-year-old throwaway person.” With the passing of the NYJOL the legislature was essentially asserting that teenagers who commit crimes are “throw away” persons.
The Eight Amendment, which protects individuals against cruel and unusual punishment, defends all people from cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the offence. The courts (and most of the nation and the world through various acts and mandates) have acknowledged the diminished capacity of children. Michael is under the age of 18 and therefore should be tried as a juvenile. The mandatory criminal conviction that Michael faces will force a lifetime stigmatization upon him. Michael’s role in the robbery, while serious, was relatively small. The lifetime implications of a felony record are excessive, especially when considering Michael’s age, and diminished cognitive development. For these reasons, the NYJOL should be deemed unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection regardless of race. Empirical data shows that the current NYJOL has a disproportionate impact on minorities and perpetuates a racially motivated criminal justice system based off of a facially neutral law. Michael is statistically more likely to come into contact with the justice system, and has been stigmatized by society as a violent, predatory offender who needs to be incarcerated for the sake of public safety. He does not receive the same level of protection as similarly situated white youths, and such a discrepancy cannot be upheld based on a State interest in reducing crime. For these reasons, the NYJOL should be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Michelle E. Montgomery 