1979 full adoption record and decision - operative identity overwrite

This is the operative record of the double adoption loop. CSR Novi Sad does not return the child to the real identity line. It conducts the second adoption through Vasić Milan, the identity manufactured by the first adoption. Article 2 requires the child’s interest; Article 7 defines who may adopt and how spouses adopt; Articles 14 and 15 require preparatory verification and professional opinions; Article 17 requires rejection if the conditions or child’s interest fail; Articles 18 and 19 govern the hearing and consent; Article 21 requires the record to contain the acts and statements; Article 22 sends the adoption record to the registrar; Article 24 confirms that ordinary adoption does not terminate blood kinship and obligations. The record turns a manufactured 1979 identity into the procedural foundation for a 1984 transfer. Article 40 prohibits dissolution of full adoption. If the 1979 full adoption is maintained as lawful and indissoluble, the second adoption of 1984 directly contradicts that maintained status and requires an explanation of the legal basis for the second adoption.

Drawn up on 26 September 1984 on the premises of the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, as the authorised guardianship authority pursuant to Article 3 of the Law on Guardianship of SAP Vojvodina, No. 24/71, and Article 1 of the Decision on Entrusting Guardianship Affairs to the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad by the Municipal Assemblies of Stari Grad, Liman, Podunavlje, Detelinara, Slavija, Petrovaradin and Sremski Karlovci (“Official Gazette of the City of Novi Sad”, Nos. 21/81, 7/83, 6/83, 13/83, 9/83, 7/85), in the matter of the adoption of the minor VASIĆ MILAN, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, by the adopters PETROVIĆ PERIŠA and PETROVIĆ GORGINA from Kragujevac, Kraljevački bataljon Street 110.

This is the operative document of the first cut. Milivoj Miletić is moved into the Milan Vasić identity through full adoption. Article 2 required the child’s interest. Article 5 required parental consent unless strict statutory replacement conditions existed. Articles 14 and 15 required real preparatory verification and professional opinions. Article 17 required rejection if conditions or the child’s interest failed. Articles 30 and 31 defined the threshold for full adoption; Article 35 governed the new birth-register entry; Article 37 cut legal blood-family rights; Article 38 blocked later paternity/maternity establishment; Article 39 sealed the file as official secret; Articles 41 and 42 define the nullity/applicability frame. Read with the 1977 court paternal-line record and the O.196/79 probate track, this document is not neutral adoption paperwork. It is the first administrative identity substitution.

CSR refers to the 1979 adoption record already attached to the claim and separately to the three professional reports. The linked package contains the record and decision of 21 June 1979, including the subsequent civil-register instruction. It provides the original adoption act against which the October request for the complete file and all status acts can be read.

**1.** Regarding provision of the **adoption record**, the defendant states that a copy of that record was **submitted with the statement of claim, designated as attachment no. 4** (on page 11 of the statement of claim), and that the defendant does not dispute its authenticity. **2.** Regarding provision of the expert service’s opinions, the defendant states that the reports of the social worker, pedagogue and psychologist were **attached to the statement of claim and designated as attachment no. 7, attachment no. 8 and attachment no. 9** (on pages 16–22 of the statement of claim).

CSR concludes that no grounds for annulment existed when the adoption was established. The linked record and decision of 21 June 1979 show the actual adoption procedure and subsequent civil-register instruction. They allow comparison of the December best-protection argument with what the original act records about participation, consent and the resulting identity entries.

In view of all the above, the defendant maintains all its previous statements and again emphasizes that it opposes the action and the claim as formulated, because grounds for annulment of the adoption did not exist at the time it was established, in accordance with the provisions of the **Law on Adoption** adopted by the Assembly of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina at the session of the **Council of the Municipality on 23 September 1976** and at the session of the **Socio-Political Council on 23 September 1976**, no. **01-551/1976**.

This is the operative document of the first cut. Milivoj Miletić is moved into the Milan Vasić identity through full adoption. Article 2 required the child’s interest. Article 5 required parental consent unless strict statutory replacement conditions existed. Articles 14 and 15 required real preparatory verification and professional opinions. Article 17 required rejection if conditions or the child’s interest failed. Articles 30 and 31 defined the threshold for full adoption; Article 35 governed the new birth-register entry; Article 37 cut legal blood-family rights; Article 38 blocked later paternity/maternity establishment; Article 39 sealed the file as official secret; Articles 41 and 42 define the nullity/applicability frame. Read with the 1977 court paternal-line record and the O.196/79 probate track, this document is not neutral adoption paperwork. It is the first administrative identity substitution.

The 1979 record Up.03-507/79 is the act challenged. The revision compares its parental information and consent narrative with Article 34 and the separate full-adoption conditions.

> “Full adoption may not be dissolved.” In the factual part of its judgment, the Court of Appeal accepts that: - on 21 June 1979 the plaintiff was fully adopted by Milorad and Gospava Vasić; - on 26 September 1984 the plaintiff was adopted again by Periša and Georgina Petrović. If the first full adoption was lawful and indissoluble, a second adoption of the same child could not lawfully have been carried out. If the second adoption was nevertheless carried out, that cannot have no bearing on assessment of the legal sustainability of the first full adoption. The second-instance court refused to draw any conclusion from this direct statutory contradiction, reasoning that the validity of the second adoption is not the subject of the proceedings. That approach is wrong. The subject of the proceedings is the nullity of the 1979 full adoption. The fact that the same system placed the same child for adoption again in 1984 is directly relevant to assessing whether the 1979 act was indeed lawfully, fully and permanently established. The Court of Appeal neutralised the legal significance of this fact instead of assessing it. It thereby failed to apply Article 40 and assess the status consequences under Articles 35, 37 and 38 SAPVAA. ### 7. The second-instance court incorrectly applied Article 34 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina Article 34 SAPVAA provides: > “Information about the adoptee’s parents shall not be entered in the record establishing full adoption.” Yet the Court of Appeal states in its reasoning that the full-adoption record Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 records: - that the minor Milivoj’s mother has been at an unknown place of residence for a prolonged period; - that she does not perform her parental duties without justifiable reasons; - that Vera Radovanović was appointed ad hoc guardian and consents to adoption. In other words, according to the Court of Appeal’s own factual description, the full-adoption record contains information about the adoptee’s parent, and uses it as the central factual basis for establishing full adoption. That directly contradicts Article 34 SAPVAA. The Court of Appeal did not assess this legal consequence at all. Although this violation was not separately numbered in the appeal, it follows from the contested judgment’s own factual description and is a legal consequence of the facts the second-instance court itself accepted as established. It is therefore directly relevant in proceedings on this appeal on points of law, as further confirmation that the lower courts applied SAPVAA selectively.

The 21 June 1979 record identifies the consent role and the resulting name Vasić Milan. It directly connects the author’s argument about Vera’s combined functions with the original adoption act.

## Source page 6 - records my crying at “Milivoj”; - instructs the foster carer to call me by the imposed name; - records that I soon “declare that my name is now Mišo”; - takes me into full-adoption proceedings with the Vasić family, with the ultimate objective of making me Vasić Milan. Thus, in its own official notes, the Centre recorded the entire process of psychologically preparing a child for the erasure of his original name and identity. This is not a neutral social intervention; it is the engineering of a child’s identity. ### The role of social worker Vera Radovanović and the conflict of interest (1979–1984) A further level of the Centre’s self-incrimination is visible in the fact that the same person — social worker and head of guardianship Vera Radovanović — simultaneously, in this case: - constructs the narrative about the mother and disputes my father’s paternity; - recommends specific adoptive parents for me in particular; - is appointed as an “ad hoc guardian”; - in that role, gives consent to full adoption; - and then, several years later, also participates in manufacturing the first adoptive parent’s “consent” to a new adoption of the same child. The chronology is indisputable: - **8 April 1979:** Vera Radovanović maintains the monitoring sheet for no. 3871/79: she describes my mother as “prone to prostitution, alcohol and wandering”, relativizes Pal Lakatoš’s paternity (“claims to be the father”), but simultaneously records that I am well cared for, tidy and without behavioural problems at my aunt Julka Vizmeg’s home — she is my father’s sister. - **12 June 1979:** As social worker and head of guardianship, she draws up the report on the suitability of Vasić Gospava and Milorad, in which, on the basis of housing, material and “moral” conditions, she explicitly concludes that “VASIĆ GOSPAVA and MILORAD be approved to adopt minor MILIVOJ MILETIĆ”. Thus, it was already being determined that precisely this married couple should adopt precisely me. - **20 June 1979:** By decision no. Up.03-506/79, Vera Radovanović is formally appointed ad hoc guardian “for the purpose of giving consent to the adoption of minor Miletić Milivoj”. The person who had already recommended the adoption now receives the role of the child’s “neutral” protector. - **21 June 1979:** In the minutes of full adoption, drawn up before the guardianship body, Vera Radovanović appears precisely in that role — as ad hoc guardian — and gives consent to full adoption, after which it is stated that my future name will be Vasić Milan. - **12 September 1984:** As social worker at the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad, she draws up the minutes of the first adoptive parent Vasić Milorad “giving consent” to the adoption of minor Vasić Milan. In that act, the first adoptive parent is effectively treated as a father who “gives his son for adoption”, although I had already been fully adopted once, in 1979, so that the same official actively participates in the unlawful second adoption of the same child.

The consent and nullity arguments concern this original full-adoption record and decision of 21 June 1979. The appeal asks whether its stated conditions were actually established, rather than equating the act’s existence with its validity.

The court does not explain how this fits with Article 40 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Adoption, under which full adoption may not be dissolved; with Article 7 of the same law; or with the very logic of full adoption as a legal institution. #### 6. Vera Radovanović’s conflict of interest was not properly assessed The file shows that Vera Radovanović simultaneously: - constructed a narrative of the mother as morally unfit; - relativised Pavle Lakatoš’s paternity; - kept the monitoring sheet and case report; - recommended specific adopters for me in particular; - was appointed as special-purpose guardian to give consent to adoption; - gave consent to full adoption; - and then participated in a new adoption cycle in 1984. The court did not examine this as a problem, but merely noted the formal existence of a special-purpose guardian. ### V. INCORRECT APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW #### 1. Incorrect application of Article 30 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Adoption The first-instance court formally cited Article 30 but did not apply it specifically to the established facts. The court did not clarify whether it brought the case within paragraph 1 or paragraph 4 of that article. If the case falls within paragraph 1, the court had to establish whether the parents were unknown, or whether the child had been abandoned and the parents’ whereabouts remained unestablished even after the six-month period had elapsed. If the case falls within paragraph 4, the court had to clarify who was unknown or deceased, who the other parent was, and where that other parent’s prior consent was, or the legal basis on which it had been lawfully replaced. None of this was done. #### 2. Incorrect application of Article 41 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Adoption The court reduced Article 41 to a declaration that no grounds for nullity existed, without genuinely checking whether the specific requirements of Articles 30 and 31 were met. It thereby effectively left the guardianship body to act both as the creator of the contested act and as the measure of its own lawfulness, accepting that the body had already “established” this. #### 3. Disregard of Article 40 and the logic of Article 7 By mentioning the second adoption in 1984 without any legal explanation, the court disregarded the logic of the law then in force.