Troxell v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2013 OK 100

DHS pays a monthly subsidy to foster children ($365) and to adoptive children ($310.50 cap).
Kelly and Tina Troxell adopted two special needs children and challenged the two-tier system.
Laws v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services (2008) held that a fixed cap on adoptive subsidies could be improper, but DHS and courts did not treat it as dispositive.
DHS argues the two-tier system is permissible under federal and state law, relying on federal interpretations and a foster-care cap precedent.
Oklahoma statutes and administrative rules subject adoption assistance to negotiations guided by the needs of the child and family, with a cap no greater than foster care if applicable.
The issue presented is whether the two-tier subsidy scheme complies with federal law and Oklahoma policy aimed at assisting adoptive families.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Oklahoma maintain a two-tier subsidy with a lower adoptive cap than foster care?	Troxell: two-tier is unlawful and undermines purpose.	DHS: two-tier is permissible and within federal/state guidance.	Two-tier allowed; remanded to adjust within foster cap.
Is the Laws decision controlling law for this case?	Laws supports parity to avoid artificial caps.	Laws is not dispositive but guides interpretation; DHS may apply two-tier.	Laws approved for publication and given precedential effect to govern remand.
Should the adoption subsidy be negotiated based on child and family needs rather than fixed ceilings?	Adoptive needs should drive subsidy, not a rigid ceiling.	Policy allows consideration of needs within statutory fosters cap.	Court endorses de novo consideration of needs; fixed ceilings rejected.

Laws v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2008 OK CIV APP 97 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008) (fixed adoption subsidy ceilings may frustrate purpose; reliance on laws case)