Petrović couple assessment - ignored negative psychological opinion

This is not a clean suitability package. It is a warning package. The later second-adoption route does not resolve the psychologist’s objection. It proceeds over it. At the same time, the child is not introduced through his original identity as Milivoj Miletić, but through the Vasić Milan layer created by the contested 1979 full-adoption record.

This is not a clean suitability package. It is a warning package. The later second-adoption route does not resolve the psychologist’s objection. It proceeds over it. At the same time, the child is not introduced through his original identity as Milivoj Miletić, but through the Vasić Milan layer created by the contested 1979 full-adoption record.

Annex 3 reproduces the psychologist’s 10 January 1984 assessment and its transcription. The full existing assessment packet gives the original context of the recommendation to refuse adoption and propose foster care.

## Source page 72 # ANNEX 3 The Centre for Social Work in Kragujevac psychologist’s findings and opinion dated 10 January 1984 concerning married couple Periša and Gorgina Petrović — a photocopy of the original act and an OCR transcription to facilitate reading.

In describing the January submission, the appeal expressly refers to the adverse psychological assessment of the Petrović couple. The linked dossier supplies that 1984 assessment; it is not one of the three June 1979 reports about the Vasić couple.

The judgment gives no genuine reasons addressing any of these questions. Instead, the court uses general formulas stating that the guardianship body “established” the requirements “in the preliminary proceedings”, and that the court established lawfulness “beyond doubt”. These are not reasons for a judgment, but a bare declaration. It is especially significant that the first-instance court incorporated into the reasoning of the challenged judgment the fact that the plaintiff was adopted again in 1984 by another couple, without explaining that fact in legal terms. The court thereby incorporated into its own reasoning a fact that destabilises its own conclusion that the full adoption in 1979 was lawfully and permanently established, and then left that fact without any legal analysis. Such reasoning is internally contradictory and does not permit a proper examination of whether the challenged judgment is correct. #### 2. The court did not answer the plaintiff’s decisive arguments in his submissions During the proceedings, in my submissions of 30 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 12 January 2026, and in my testimony at the hearing of 15 October 2025, I raised the decisive points of the dispute precisely, repeatedly and with documentary support. In the submission of 30 June 2025, I specifically raised the question of how authority was acquired, the relationship between the probate and adoption proceedings, and the fact that the full adoption was carried out before the body had a clear legal basis for such action. In the submission of 27 October 2025, I identified in detail which files and acts the court had to obtain, why they were relevant and which legal issues they clarified, particularly concerning divorce file P-1642/76, probate file O.196/79, authority, the mother, paternity, the second adoption in 1984 and identity. In the submission of 12 January 2026, I connected the probate proceedings, the child’s status, the question of the guardianship body, the Monitoring Sheet, Vera Radovanović’s role, the second adoption in 1984, the adverse psychologist’s assessment of the Petrović couple and the continuity of unlawful conduct. The judgment does not show that it substantively answered any of those submissions as a central body of argument. It does not engage with their reasoning, discuss their key points or rebut their central assertions; instead, it bypasses them and formally covers them over. This violated my right to have the court genuinely decide the arguments I presented, rather than merely take formal note of them. Furthermore, the judgment does not show why my decisive arguments and attachments were rejected; it shows only that the defendant’s assertions and documentation were accepted. #### 3. The judgment does not demonstrate a genuine assessment of the attachments and evidence the plaintiff had already placed in the file Besides the arguments in the submissions themselves, the decisive facts and corresponding evidence had already been physically placed in the file through attachments to my earlier submissions and to the claim itself. This applies particularly to parts of probate file O.196/79, parts of appellate proceedings Gž 11/80, divorce file P-1642/76, civil-register extracts and other attachments that I expressly relied on and specifically identified as decisive for clarifying the guardianship body’s authority, paternity, the mother and consent, and the relationship between the probate and adoption proceedings.