Administrative Identity Substitution

The sharp frame is administrative identity substitution. The child begins as Milivoj Miletić. The court record preserves the Pavle / Cvita line. The probate record preserves the heirship trace. The 1979 full adoption produces Milan Vasić. The 1984 adoption uses that construction and produces Petrović Milan. The civil register then seals the second layer.

Documentary continuation — one person, successive imposed records

Milivoj Miletić, Milan Vasić and Milan Petrović designate the same person. The 1974 birth-register extract records the original identity and mother Cvita Miletić. The P-1642/76 divorce file preserves the Pavle / Pál Lakatoš–Cvita–child relationship through statements and the court’s findings. The probate proceedings record Milivoj in the paternal inheritance route.

The 1979 full-adoption act creates the Vasić name and directs the civil-register entry with the adopters as parents. The 1984 second-adoption record then uses Vasić Milan as its starting identity, while the subsequent register extract records Petrović Milan. The same person’s earlier and later entries must be compared, rather than read as unrelated children or independent biographies.

The statutory mechanism behind the identity transfer

The 1976 law makes the consequences explicit: Article 35 regulates cancellation of the existing birth entry and a new entry with adopters as parents; Article 37 ends blood-relative rights; Article 38 bars later determination of paternity and maternity for a fully adopted child; Article 39 makes the full-adoption file and cancelled birth entry an official secret. Article 40 forbids dissolution. The author’s argument about forced assimilation and state falsification of identity concerns this mechanism applied without the lawful conditions he contests.

The military records show the later official identity layer, with the author’s separate explanation that he obtained those certificates as evidence and has not used and will not use them to claim rights. The current dispute continues in the 2026 judgment, appeal, Appellate Court judgment and revision. Those records distinguish the institutions’ acceptance of the chain from the author’s sustained challenge to its legality.