Probate O.196/79 - Milivoj inside Pavle / Pal Lakatoš heirship

CSR infers relatives’ unwillingness to care from Helena Uzelac’s withdrawal from probate representation on 3 April 1979. The linked probate file contains her actual termination of representation of Roža Kopljan and the earlier record placing the child with Pál’s parents. The scope of inheritance representation and an appeal about legal paternity differs from actual child care.

The documentation supplied indisputably shows that the plaintiff, then the minor **Milivoje Miletić**, was a child without parental care who needed family-law protection, and that adoption was assessed as the best form of protection, given that the mother had abandoned the child, the child’s paternity had not been established, and that after the death of **Pál Lakatoš**, who had allegedly passed himself off as the child’s father, none of his close relatives wanted to assume care of the child. That the relatives did not want to assume care of the child can clearly be concluded from the narrative of the statement of claim on page 4, which states: > “…the lawyer Helena Uzelac very soon, specifically on 3 April 1979, ceases to be the co-heirs’ representative, of which

The court identifies Decision 8/77 as SIZ’s general delegation for guardianship tasks. The probate file contains a separate 20 July 1979 court request to protect the minor’s rights. The documents concern different levels of authority: general institutional delegation and a particular protective action in the child’s probate proceedings.

On **21 June 1979**, at the premises of the Self-Managing Community of Interest for Social Welfare Novi Sad, acting as the guardianship authority within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decision Entrusting the Tasks of the Guardianship Authority to the Self-Managing Community of Interest Novi Sad, Social Welfare Novi Sad (“Official Gazette of the Municipality of Novi Sad”, no. 8/77), a full-adoption record no. Up.03-507/79 was drawn up concerning the minor Miletić Milivoj, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad, to be adopted by adopters Vasić Milorad and Vasić Gospava, of Budisava, residing at Petefi Šandora Street no. 52. That record stated:

Attachments 1 and 2 point to two existing sections of the same probate dossier: the 20 July 1979 guardianship request for inheritance protection and the 19 March hearing. They are linked without creating duplicate documents.

- **ATTACHMENT 1:** Court order to the Centre for Social Work Novi Sad (20 July 1979). - **ATTACHMENT 2:** Probate-hearing record (19 March 1979).

The 19 March 1979 record places the child with Pál’s parents and records Helena Uzelac’s statement about his acknowledgment. It is the source for the plaintiff’s argument about existing family care.

## Source page 11 - the chauvinistic attitude towards Croatians and erasure of Hungarian identity did not begin in the 1990s; - it already existed in a “quiet”, social and administrative form, precisely within the body supposed to protect the child. #### 7. Conclusion for these proceedings Vera Radovanović’s conduct constitutes: - a misogynistic attack on a Croatian mother, through sexual and moral disqualification; - chauvinistic erasure of the child’s Croatian and Hungarian identity; - dehumanization of the service user — the mother — and the child as “material” to be transferred into a majority family. By defending the proposition that “everything complied with the regulations”, today’s Centre for Social Work: - accepts and legitimizes that discourse as “worthy of the profession”, thereby assuming joint responsibility. This Court therefore cannot ignore the substance of that vocabulary, because today, in 2024/2025/2026, it is being signed again before this Court, this time with the names of Maja Petrović, Jelena Zorić and Katarina Stolić. #### 8. The crowning evidence of falsehoods — the Court minutes of 19 March 1979 As the crowning evidence that social worker Vera Radovanović’s report of 8 April 1979, on which the removal of the child rests, constitutes a grave distortion of the facts, effectively equivalent to a forgery, I attach the Municipal Court in Novi Sad’s minutes in probate case O.196/79 dated 19 March 1979. Only twenty days before Vera Radovanović opens the dossier and claims that the child is “neglected”, “without parental care” and that the mother “does not care” for him, the following is established before the Court: 1. The family’s representative, lawyer Helena Uzelac, explicitly states: > “…minor Milivoj is currently with his grandmother and grandfather, that is, the deceased’s parents.” This is documentary evidence that the child was neither on the street nor wandering with his mother, but cared for in the home of his paternal grandfather and grandmother. 2. The same lawyer confirms the father’s identity: > “…it has not been judicially established that the deceased is the father, but he acknowledged him…” Thus, the family and the Court know that the father acknowledged the child. 3. The Court instructs the Centre: > “Therefore… appointment of a guardian to represent the interests is to be obtained from the Centre for Social Work.”

The appeal relies on the 19 March 1979 record of the child living with paternal grandparents and the 20 July request to protect inheritance interests. It asks how the same child’s probate identity coexisted with the adoption narrative.

In other words, the first-instance court formally cited Article 30 but did not establish the decisive facts without which that provision cannot be applied: neither the legal framework governing this particular case, nor the duration and course of the search, nor a lawful basis for substituting the special-purpose guardian’s consent for that of a known mother. #### 3. Pavle Lakatoš and the traces of paternity were not properly assessed The court reduced the issue of Pavle Lakatoš to the simple observation that paternity had not been judicially established. This bypassed the substance of the matter. The proceedings raised and documented traces showing that Pavle Lakatoš: - acknowledged the child in the context of divorce proceedings; - that the family knew of the child’s existence; - that I lived within my paternal family circle; - that I was staying with my paternal grandmother and grandfather; - that my status as the deceased’s son born outside marriage was discussed in the probate proceedings; - that at one point I was even declared an heir. The court did not assess the significance of these traces for whether the administrative formula “father unknown” reflected the actual facts, or represented an administrative reduction of a more complex family and inheritance reality to facilitate full adoption. #### 4. Probate proceedings O.196/79 were not properly assessed The probate proceedings were not incidental background, but one of the central pieces of evidence. They contain: - the record of 19 March 1979, stating that the minor Milivoj was staying with his grandparents, namely the deceased’s parents; - the letter of 20 July 1979, requesting the appointment of a guardian to protect his rights and interests in the probate proceedings; - appellate proceedings Gž 11/80, showing that private heirs possessed information that full-adoption proceedings had taken place before SIZ and that the adopters had stated they did not seek for Milivoj to inherit from anyone. The court did not explain how the same child could exist in one legal channel as Miletić Milivoj, a potential heir of Pavle Lakatoš, and in another as a child without parental care, ready for full adoption and the rewriting of his identity into another family. Nor did the judgment explain why it did not consider that material decisive, although it directly concerns identity, inheritance status and the timing of institutional action towards the child. #### 5. The second adoption in 1984 was left without legal explanation The judgment states that I was adopted by the Petrović couple in 1984 and was assigned their surname, but does not clarify how this was possible at all if a full adoption had already been lawfully established in 1979.

Probate O.196/79 preserves the March record, July guardianship request and November inheritance decision involving Milivoj Miletić. The revision uses that contemporaneous trail to question the “father unknown” premise of the June adoption.

They invoked it when it supported the 1979 outcome and ignored it when the same file revealed the unlawful structure of the proceedings. ### 8. The second-instance court incorrectly assessed the inheritance and paternal trail as legally irrelevant background The lawfulness of the 1979 full adoption cannot be assessed in isolation from the parallel probate proceedings after the death of Pavle Lakatoš, in which the minor Milivoj Miletić appears as a child whose rights and interests must be protected. In this context, the following facts are decisive: - in the record of 19 March 1979, the minor Milivoj Miletić is recorded as a child staying with his grandparents, the parents of the deceased Pavle Lakatoš; - on 20 July 1979, the Municipal Court in Novi Sad seeks appointment of a guardian to protect his rights and interests in the probate proceedings; - by the decision of 23 November 1979 he is declared an heir after Pavle Lakatoš; - in appeal proceedings Gž 11/80, the other heirs possess information about the full-adoption proceedings, including the assertion that the adopters do not object to Milivoj inheriting from anyone, and use that material against his inheritance position. This shows that the case files simultaneously contained: - an adoption track portraying the child as eligible for complete displacement of identity; - a probate track in which the same child appears as Milivoj Miletić, connected with Pavle Lakatoš’s paternal line and the exercise of inheritance rights. The Court of Appeal reduced this conflict to the subsequent setting aside of the inheritance decision and thereby avoided assessing its significance for the lawfulness of the full adoption of 21 June 1979. This is an incorrect application of substantive law: the conditions for full adoption must be assessed against the legal framework and facts at the time it was established, not against the later removal of one of the traces revealing those facts. ### 9. The second-instance court did not assess the legal significance of Articles 35, 37 and 38 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina Article 35 SAPVAA provides that the report establishing full adoption contains information about the birth entry being cancelled and information for the adoptee’s new birth entry, identifying the adopters as parents. Article 37 provides that full adoption terminates the statutory rights and duties between the adoptee and his blood relatives. Article 38 provides that determination of the paternity and maternity of a fully adopted child is not permitted. These provisions show the actual effect of full adoption. They confirm that the contested act did not merely change a surname or family placement.