The Child's Voice — Publicly Taught, Procedurally Contested

Analysis / Professional accountability

Scope. This article compares public professional descriptions with court records and signed submissions. It concerns Maja Petrović's representation of the defendant Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad (CSR) in P2.1435/24, including its procedural antecedents. She did not make the adoption decisions of 1979 or 1984. The author's challenges to those decisions remain available in full in the linked archive.

Public professional role · The statute and evidence · Attendance and postponements · The metal cabinet · Vera's List praćenja · Reversed party labels · Source index

The Foundation Rođeni iz duše describes Maja Petrović as a CSR lawyer since February 2014, with adoption-procedure experience and involvement in preparing prospective adopters since 2023. It names her as a coauthor and educator of Usvojenje – glas deteta, uloga usvojitelja i zadatak stručnjaka — Adoption: the Child's Voice, the Role of Adopters and the Task of Professionals. The biography attributes accreditation to Serbia's Chamber of Social Protection; this page does not present that as an independently checked certificate. E1

CSR Leskovac independently reports training under that title on 19–20 March 2026, delivered by Maja Petrović, lawyer, and Marija Rajković, social worker, both from CSR Novi Sad. It describes a trauma-informed approach with the child at the centre. This confirms the reported event and educators, not the content of every module. E2

The comparison below asks how those publicly stated principles meet the institutional response when an adult adoptee challenges the records of his own childhood. Public training activity, in itself, proves neither the correctness nor the incorrectness of a litigation position.

In its response of 16 October 2026, the Foundation “Rođeni iz duše” states that Maja Petrović occasionally participates as a lecturer, is not its employee and does not represent the Foundation in her work for CSR. The Foundation states that it has no role in the court proceedings concerned and declined to comment on their circumstances.

6 February 2025. Maja Petrović opposes the action by reference to the historical adoption legislation, then asks 30 days to acquaint herself with its contents, saying she must obtain it from the Provincial Secretariat's library. She also objects to the proposed witnesses. The same page expressly accepts hearing the claimant and inspecting the written documents already attached. A, PDF p. 2

26 March 2025 — 48 days later. She again opposes the action in full and requests another 15 days for a detailed written position and to provide the SAP Vojvodina Adoption Act. She produces the 2005 report about the search for Cvita Miletić and opposes particular witness and divorce-file evidence. She accepts production of adoption records but opposes the wider pre-adoption protective files, including how the child came under CSR's jurisdiction, arguing that this would burden the proceedings and questioning relevance. B, PDF pp. 2–3

Author's assessment: CSR spent months asserting that the adoption complied with the law while its representative repeatedly sought time to obtain, study or supply the governing text. The documented sequence supports scrutiny of that method: a defence of legality was already being advanced alongside successive requests concerning the very statute invoked. The February record names the intended library; it does not literally say she did not know where to look. The later submission cites statutory provisions, so this article does not extend the claim of an unobtained statute through the rest of the year.

The submission with a 1 April heading and 7 May 2025 closing date, signed in her name, asserts that the guardianship authority complied with all legal norms. It dismisses criticism of adopter suitability as coming from people without the prescribed professional competence and rejects reinterpretation from a distance of 46 years. These are CSR's assertions, not findings established by the submission itself. The two printed dates do not establish the actual signing or filing date. C, PDF pp. 1–3

The claimant's response of 30 June 2025 challenges obstruction, backdating and the legality of the 1979 adoption. Its arguments must be read alongside the institutional answer. Likewise, the March court order requires the adoption documentation held by CSR; it must not be silently expanded into the claimant's broader request for every record establishing prior jurisdiction. The two-year/12-hearing framework in February was jointly proposed and set by the court, not imposed by Maja alone.

The sequence warrants examination, but the record does not identify every absent CSR representative as Maja. The following distinguishes a named appearance, an institutional absence, a signed request and the author's account.

• 24 April 2024: the original hearing record explicitly records Maja Petrović appearing without power of attorney (PDF p. 1). The claimant's lawyer asks that the hearing not proceed, citing that defect and the jurisdiction objection; the court will decide the further course in writing. This is a documented problem with her appearance at that hearing, not proof that she lacked authority at every subsequent hearing.
• 5 November 2024: the record records no appearance for CSR despite proper summons. It does not name the absent representative. The claimant himself asks for time for a written position and legal assistance.
• 5 June 2025: in his separate account, the author describes arriving for the scheduled hearing, being orally told the CSR lawyer could not attend, accepting 3 September as the next date and receiving no written record at that visit. This is his account, not a contemporaneous hearing transcript.
• 27–28 August 2025: the CSR request and court cancellation order show an institutional request signed by director Katarina Stolić, not by Maja. The request does not name the unavailable representative and says other representatives are occupied with other cases. The court moves the 3 September hearing to 15 October: 42 days later. No medical details are needed to examine the representation and notification issues.
• 3–4 September 2025: the author reports learning of the cancellation at court on 3 September and receiving the letter on 4 September. The preserved envelope bears a 2 September postal mark, which does not independently prove delivery time. He formally challenges notification and substantiation in his 2 October submission.
• 15 October 2025: Branislav Čolak appears for CSR. His statements cannot be transferred to Maja. The claimant requests the next adjournment and the representative agrees; CSR was represented that day.

The author's criticism of repeated delay is preserved. A justified account of responsibility must retain these distinctions rather than turn every delay into a personally proven, unjustified absence by Maja.

At the 26 November 2025 hearing, Maja maintains opposition and says the material considered relevant has been supplied. She describes an ongoing search for the 1974/pre-adoption archive, with uncertainty about its location. The court gives 15 days for a response and 30 days for archival evidence. D, PDF pp. 2–3

The 27 November submission, received on 2 December and signed in her name, says adoption files are kept separately in a special metal cabinet, whereas other proceedings are archived. It attributes an explanation about that storage to the previous hearing. The supplied hearing record does not contain the metal-cabinet explanation; it records the archive search. E, PDF p. 2

This is a concrete difference between the two records. Different storage arrangements may concern different categories of files; the cabinet itself is not evidence of concealment. But describing storage does not identify the earlier protective acts or establish how CSR acquired jurisdiction over the child. That is the issue raised in the claimant's 27 October submission and pursued in his 12 January 2026 final submission. The 30-day deadline had not expired on 27 November.

The same November response does not dispute the content or authenticity of Milorad Vasić's consent record of 12 September 1984, yet disputes the later adoption's relevance to the relief sought over the first. It supplies 1984 material while contesting its relevance: it should not be described as refusing all production. Authenticity is also different from the legal validity of consent. The author's argument concerns the continuing chain of identity and adoption acts, not an invented separate 1984 annulment claim. E, PDF pp. 2–3

In the 22 December 2025 submission, received on 24 December, Maja signs CSR's argument that adoption was the appropriate protection measure. It relies on selected passages from Vera Radovanović's dossier 3871/79 and List praćenja about the mother, paternal status and relatives. The issue is not merely whether words were copied: which parts were selected, what was left outside the argument, and what those selected parts can actually establish. F, PDF pp. 1–2

Author's assessment: the List praćenja is compromising for the institution itself. In his 12 January submission, PDF pp. 5–6, he describes this material as the Centre's self-incrimination and engineering of the child's identity. He disputes its selective use to legitimise the adoption. Those are his articulated conclusions, supported by the comparisons he supplies, not a finding of criminal responsibility made by this page.

Read the complete Vera record, probate file, divorce proceedings P.1642/76 and the claimant's full response together. Neither a reported admission in divorce proceedings nor a note in a social-work file should be silently relabelled as a separate paternity judgment. The existing source transcriptions remain unchanged.

The actual roles are stable: Milan Petrović is the plaintiff; CSR Novi Sad is the defendant. Yet the submission with April/May dates labels CSR as plaintiff and Milan as defendant in its heading, while its opening and signature identify CSR as defendant. C, PDF pp. 1, 3

The 27 November response repeats the reversed heading and calls CSR the plaintiff in parts of its text, then closes with the formula for the defendant's authorised representative. This is repeated confusion within the institution's own signed documents, not merely a label introduced by this archive. E, PDF pp. 1–3

The 22 December submission repeats the same reversal: its heading names CSR as plaintiff and Milan as defendant, while the body and signature present CSR as defendant. The pattern is therefore present in three signed submissions, not just one isolated heading. F, PDF pp. 1–2

The original wording is retained for readers to check. The author flags these reversals as part of his criticism of how the case was handled. The visible contradiction establishes unreliable party labelling; by itself it does not establish a deliberate exchange of legal roles or fraudulent intent. A separate inconsistent party label in a court record belongs to the court record and must not be attributed to Maja's drafting.

The final hearing and the documented question

At the 9 February 2026 hearing, Maja maintains CSR's opposition, offers no further evidence and agrees to closure. The court's recorded assertions that the file and documents were read are separate from her statements; the claimant disputes both assertions in his published account. G, PDF pp. 1–2

The first-instance judgment of 9 February 2026 rejected the claim (PDF p. 2); the appellate judgment of 22 April 2026 rejected the appeal and upheld that judgment (PDF p. 1). The archive also contains the claimant's revision dated 29 May 2026, challenging those decisions. That pleading does not itself establish a Supreme Court outcome.

The training title invokes the child's voice. The Leskovac notice invokes trauma-informed, child-centred practice. The litigation concerns an adult asking how his childhood identity, origins and family relationships were handled. Successive statute requests, objections to pre-adoption evidence, explanations about archives, selected historical quotations and repeated party-label reversals are therefore concrete matters for scrutiny.

The question is not whether a lawyer must concede the claim. It is how the professional principles publicly associated with child-centred adoption practice are reconciled with the evidentiary and legal positions advanced when an adoptee challenges the records of his own origins. Particular witness objections are not automatically equivalent to suppressing a child's voice. Readers have the sources and the author's responses with which to judge the comparison.

The court records below document what participants said and what the court recorded or ordered. The CSR submissions document the defendant institution's assertions. The linked claimant submissions contain the author's challenges; the comparison on this page is editorial analysis. Page numbers mean physical pages of the linked public PDFs.

Foundation Rođeni iz duše: Maja Petrović. Publisher's professional description and accreditation claim. Accessed 15 October 2026. Relevant professional passages are preserved in the internal source audit; unrelated private biography and portrait are excluded.

CSR Leskovac: public notices, entry for 19–20 March 2026. An independent institution's report of the training event, named educators and stated approach. Accessed 15 October 2026.

Editorial limitation

This article concerns her own verified later representation and publicly described professional training. It does not assert participation in the 1979 or 1984 decisions, a personal motive, criminal liability, an adjudicated disciplinary violation or a final finding of misconduct against her. The author's existing conclusions about the historical acts remain in the archive and are not rewritten by this comparison.