A document-led story with a specific contradiction that can be checked.
In 1979, an official record declares full adoption; five years later, another record places the same child with different adopters using the identity created by the first act. The 1976 law says full adoption cannot be dissolved, making the intervening legal step a concrete reporting question rather than a dispute over competing memories.
Evidence to examine first
Introduction before three written assessments; Vera evaluates, announces and consents
Milivoj was introduced to the prospective adopters on 5 June 1979, before the three written assessments by social worker Vera Radovanović on 12 June, pedagogue Milosava Gudelj on 18 June and psychologist Cvetko Ratković on 19 June. Vera was one of those three professional assessors: her report of 12 June expressly recommends approving the adoption. On 15 June, the same Vera informs the foster mother that Milivoj will be adopted at the end of June, before the other two written opinions; she is then appointed guardian on 20 June and gives consent to the adoption on 21 June, only 16 days after the introduction. Articles 14, 15 and 17 require examination of the statutory conditions and the child’s interests, professional opinions and a finding that the conditions are met before the adoption hearing is scheduled.
5 June: introduction to the adopters · 12 June: Vera recommends approval · 15 June: Vera announces adoption · 18 June: Gudelj’s favourable written opinion · 19 June: Ratković’s favourable written opinion · 20 June: Vera appointed guardian and gives consent in the 21 June record · Article 14: preparatory examination · Article 15: professional opinions · Article 17: conditions before scheduling
The 21 June 1979 record expressly says the adopters were informed of Article 40 and declares full adoption. The 1984 record then relies on consent from the person it calls the father and changes Vasić Milan to Petrović Milan. The two acts document the sequence of two adoption decisions concerning the same child.
1979: Article 40 explained · 1984: consent attributed to the father · 1984: new name ordered
The 22 April 2026 appellate judgment says the validity of the second adoption is outside these proceedings, then concludes there are no grounds to declare the 1979 full adoption void. Compare that actual holding with Article 40 and the author’s challenge in the revision.
Appellate judgment: scope and outcome · Article 40: full adoption cannot be dissolved · Revision: the second-adoption argument
The disputed first act supplies the “father” for the second adoption
Milorad Vasić’s consent of 12 September 1984 calls the child “my minor son”; Vera Radovanović takes the statement. The second adoption then relies on the consent of the person it calls the father. The author’s nullity argument follows the whole chain: the void 1979 act cannot create a lawful parental status capable of replacing the biological parent’s consent in 1984. His separate alternative argument remains: even if the first full adoption were valid, Article 40 prohibits its dissolution.
Milorad: “my minor son” · 1984: consent attributed to the father · Article 40: full adoption cannot be dissolved
The appeal attributes a different statement to the adopters
Jovan Pervaz’s appeal of 12 December 1979 attributes to the adopters a statement that they did not seek for Milivoj to inherit from anyone. The actual 21 June adoption record instead records their agreement that he should inherit their property. Compare the two passages directly: the adoption record is not the statement asserted in the appeal, which asks the court to obtain the SIZ files.
Pervaz: the alleged adopter statement · The adopters’ actual inheritance clause · Appeal: request for the SIZ files
Questions to examine
- Which document explains the transition from the full adoption to the second adoption?
- How does the adopter’s own account of ending contact compare with the institutional description of child protection?
- What did the 2026 court actually decide, and which arguments remain in the dated revision?
Start with these documents
- 1979 full adoption record and decision - operative identity overwrite — The 21 June 1979 record supplies the first adoption and name change.
- SAPV Adoption Act 1976 - legal mechanism map — Article 40 in the original law supplies the rule on dissolution that makes the transition testable.
- Milorad Vasić consent - false parental position from the 1979 void adoption record — Milorad’s own 12 September 1984 statement explains placement and the absence of contact.
- Second adoption record - Vasić Milan transferred into Petrović Milan — The second adoption record shows the first imposed identity reused as its input.
- First-instance judgment: Bojana Vujić dismisses the annulment claim; disputed reasoning and rejected witnesses — The 9 February 2026 judgment provides the actual outcome and evidentiary reasoning.
- Revision of 29 May 2026: the appellate judgment confronted with the 1976 law and the identity evidence — The 29 May revision identifies the author’s current challenge, not a Supreme Court ruling.
- Appellate Court dismisses the appeal: Branka Perc, Aleksandra Pekez Kalinić and Marko Prentović — Gž2 211/26, 22 April 2026 — The appellate judgment expressly addresses the second adoption and states the scope and outcome of the appeal.
- Exclusion of Milivoj Miletić from O.196/79 — Pervaz appeal, adoption secrecy and court legalization of contaminated material — The 1979–1980 probate file contains Pervaz’s appeal, the paternity inquiry ordered on remand, the adoption-only reply and the final exclusion reasoning.
- Vera Radovanović dossier 3871/79 — father when useful, unknown when identity is at stake — The dated diary records introduction, the announced outcome and transfer of the child.
- Vasić pre-adoption assessment (June 1979) — compressed validation of the first identity substitution — The three written expert opinions and their dates in June 1979.
Follow the sources before choosing a headline. Distinguish official wording, the author’s account and judicial findings; the full translations allow readers to check the story themselves.
Current archive coverage: Court record through 29 May 2026; institutional correspondence through 7 September 2026.
PDF edition: 9 October 2026
Download PDF (2 pages) · Complete document index · Full author’s summary