Why the Second Adoption Is the Structural Proof
The second adoption proves that the first substitution did not close the matter. It became the input for a second identity transfer.
The 1984 file is decisive because it uses the 1979 Vasić identity as if it were natural and lawful. That is the structural point. If the 1979 adoption were a clean protective solution, the second adoption would not need to rely on Milorad Vasić as “father” of Vasić Milan. The second loop exposes the first.
Documentary continuation — consent does not dissolve full adoption
The 1979 act expressly establishes full adoption. Article 40 of the 1976 SAPV Adoption Act forbids its dissolution. Article 36 creates legal kinship between adopters and the adopted child; it does not turn an adopter into the child’s biological father. Article 7 regulates adoption by more than one person, with the exception for spouses. These provisions must be read with the actual route followed in 1984.
In the record of 12 September 1984, Milorad says “my minor son Vasić Milan” and agrees to adoption by another family. He describes placing the child in foster care to save his new marriage and having no contact since August 1983. The 26 September record calls the consenting person the father and creates incomplete adoption by the Petrović couple. Neither record identifies an act annulling the 1979 full adoption. Consent, dissolution and annulment are different acts; the consent statement cannot itself supply that missing transition.
The 1983–1984 assessment dossier also contains a psychological opinion dated 10 January 1984 recommending refusal of the adoption request and foster care instead. Read that recommendation alongside the final act, rather than treating the later act’s existence as its own proof that the earlier objection was answered.
The argument remains concrete in the present proceedings
The 2026 appeal and revision maintain the author’s position that the first full adoption was void. They also demand an answer to the alternative problem: even if the first adoption were treated as valid, how was the second adoption compatible with Article 40? The first-instance judgment describes the 1984 adoption and quotes Article 40 within the historical material; that mention is not a separate analysis resolving the transition. This distinction is central to the structural argument.