Second adoption record - Vasić Milan transferred into Petrović Milan

The register extract is the final administrative seal of the 1984 loop. It does not restore Milivoj Miletić, Cvita Miletić, or Pavle / Pal Lakatoš. It records Petrović Milan while the Vasić parental frame remains in force. Under Articles 21 and 22 the adoption record moves into the civil register; under Article 24 ordinary adoption does not erase blood kinship. The paper therefore shows the operative result: the Vasić construction is not corrected, but carried forward into the Petrović construction.

The guardianship authority shall deliver the adoption report to the competent registrar for entry of the necessary data.

This is the operative record of the double adoption loop. CSR Novi Sad does not return the child to the real identity line. It conducts the second adoption through Vasić Milan, the identity manufactured by the first adoption. Article 2 requires the child’s interest; Article 7 defines who may adopt and how spouses adopt; Articles 14 and 15 require preparatory verification and professional opinions; Article 17 requires rejection if the conditions or child’s interest fail; Articles 18 and 19 govern the hearing and consent; Article 21 requires the record to contain the acts and statements; Article 22 sends the adoption record to the registrar; Article 24 confirms that ordinary adoption does not terminate blood kinship and obligations. The record turns a manufactured 1979 identity into the procedural foundation for a 1984 transfer.

CSR names the 26 September 1984 adoption record, lists documents in that incomplete-adoption file and states that it supplies them while disputing their relevance. The linked record is the existing 1984 source. This connection addresses the plaintiff’s requested legal continuity after the 1979 full adoption; it does not make the later file a newly pleaded annulment claim.

In the plaintiff’s submission of **29 October 2025**, in **Section III**, entitled **Arranging Procedural Prerequisites and Time Limits (Powers of Attorney and Time Limits)**, at **point 2 — Delivery of Complete Documentation**, subpoint 4, **“the complete file on incomplete adoption”**, the **plaintiff** states that the statement of claim includes the **Adoption Record no. Up. 02-987/84, dated 26 September 1984, designated as attachment no. 11** (on page 28 of the statement of claim), and that, in addition to the aforementioned documents, this submission provides the documentation from the incomplete-adoption file, case no. **UP 02-987/84**, namely: - Application for establishment of adoption, **Up 02-987**; - Extract from the death register for **Gospava Vasić**; - Medical certificate no. **05-23** for **Georgina Petrović**, dated **29 August 1984**; - Medical certificate no. **05-24** for **Periša Petrović**, dated **29 August 1984**; - Findings and opinion of the psychologist of CSR Kragujevac, dated **10 January 1984**; - Social worker’s report with the opinion of CSR Kragujevac, dated **1 March 1984**; ## Source page 3 Continuation of the incomplete-adoption documentation list: - Findings and opinion of the pedagogue of CSR Kragujevac; - Extract from the marriage register for **Periša and Georgina Petrović**; - Certificate of CSR **“Solidarnost” Kragujevac**, no. **U-1304/83-2**; - Certificate of CSR **“Solidarnost” Kragujevac**, no. **U-1304/83-1**; - Certificate of the Municipal Court in Kragujevac, no. **2481/84**, dated **19 September 1984**; - Certificate of the Municipal Court in Kragujevac, no. **2305/84**, dated **30 August 1984**. The defendant submits the aforementioned incomplete-adoption documentation, although it considers it irrelevant because the claim does not seek annulment of this adoption.

The court recounts the 1984 adoption but says its validity is outside this case. The linked actual record can be compared with the appeal’s argument about the legal effects of an allegedly valid first full adoption and the author’s primary position that the initial act was void. The claim remains directed at the 1979 act.

Furthermore, given that the plaintiff’s adopters’ marriage was dissolved, that his adoptive mother Gospava Vasić died on 19 April 1983, and that Milorad Vasić stated before the guardianship body on 12 September 1984 that he consented to the plaintiff being given up for adoption, the plaintiff was adopted by Periša and Georgina Petrović on 26 September 1984; the validity of that adoption is not the subject of these proceedings. Accordingly, taking account of all the circumstances and the chronology from the plaintiff’s birth to the establishment of the adoption on 26 September 1984, this court states that there are no grounds to declare the full adoption established on 21 June 1979 void.

The judgment records the 26 September 1984 adoption after having reproduced the 1979 full-adoption record and its Article 40 reference. The linked second-adoption act permits direct comparison of the later legal status and surnames. The judgment does not identify an annulment of the earlier full adoption or explain that transition.

By the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad record no. Up.02-987/84 of **26 September 1984**, the plaintiff was adopted by Petrović Periša and Petrović Georgina, née Miljković, and it was determined that he would henceforth bear the adopters’ surname, Petrović.

The appeal directly challenges the judgment’s unexplained reference to the 1984 adoption by the Petrović couple. The linked second-adoption record makes the concrete later act available for the argument under Articles 7 and 40.

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.

The 1984 adoption record proceeds through Vasić Milan, born on 28 June 1974 in Novi Sad. The original extract records Milivoj Miletić with the same birth date and place, mother Cvita Miletić and an unfilled father field. The 1979 record explicitly renames Milivoj as Vasić Milan. These passages provide the identity bridge for comparing the 1984 record with the original birth entry.

Surname and given name of the child - Miletić Milivoj Sex - male Date and time of birth - 28 June 1974, at 13:25 Place and municipality of birth - Novi Sad Information on parents - Father: not entered in this extract - Mother: Cvita Miletić

The 1984 adoption is invoked as evidence bearing on the premise of a lawful, indissoluble 1979 adoption. The revision expressly does not substitute a separate claim to annul the second act for the existing claim.

> “Full adoption may not be dissolved.” In the factual part of its judgment, the Court of Appeal accepts that: - on 21 June 1979 the plaintiff was fully adopted by Milorad and Gospava Vasić; - on 26 September 1984 the plaintiff was adopted again by Periša and Georgina Petrović. If the first full adoption was lawful and indissoluble, a second adoption of the same child could not lawfully have been carried out. If the second adoption was nevertheless carried out, that cannot have no bearing on assessment of the legal sustainability of the first full adoption. The second-instance court refused to draw any conclusion from this direct statutory contradiction, reasoning that the validity of the second adoption is not the subject of the proceedings. That approach is wrong. The subject of the proceedings is the nullity of the 1979 full adoption. The fact that the same system placed the same child for adoption again in 1984 is directly relevant to assessing whether the 1979 act was indeed lawfully, fully and permanently established. The Court of Appeal neutralised the legal significance of this fact instead of assessing it. It thereby failed to apply Article 40 and assess the status consequences under Articles 35, 37 and 38 SAPVAA. ### 7. The second-instance court incorrectly applied Article 34 of the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina Article 34 SAPVAA provides: > “Information about the adoptee’s parents shall not be entered in the record establishing full adoption.” Yet the Court of Appeal states in its reasoning that the full-adoption record Up.03-507/79 of 21 June 1979 records: - that the minor Milivoj’s mother has been at an unknown place of residence for a prolonged period; - that she does not perform her parental duties without justifiable reasons; - that Vera Radovanović was appointed ad hoc guardian and consents to adoption. In other words, according to the Court of Appeal’s own factual description, the full-adoption record contains information about the adoptee’s parent, and uses it as the central factual basis for establishing full adoption. That directly contradicts Article 34 SAPVAA. The Court of Appeal did not assess this legal consequence at all. Although this violation was not separately numbered in the appeal, it follows from the contested judgment’s own factual description and is a legal consequence of the facts the second-instance court itself accepted as established. It is therefore directly relevant in proceedings on this appeal on points of law, as further confirmation that the lower courts applied SAPVAA selectively.

The second adoption is cited as part of the continuing sequence and the use of a status derived from the contested first act. The linked 1984 record allows that argument to be examined against the actual decision.

## Source page 12 **Conclusion:** On 8 April 1979, the guardianship body — Vera Radovanović — consciously ignored the fact that the child was with his grandmother and grandfather. Instead of complying with the Court’s instruction and protecting the property interests of the child living with his grandparents, the social worker: - conceals the existence of the grandmother and grandfather; - removes the child from his biological family; - constructs a story about a “vagrant mother” to justify the unlawful removal of a child already being cared for; - takes the child into full adoption, directly depriving him of the inheritance for which the Court sought protection. These minutes prove that the conditions for removing the child did not exist, because he was within his family — with the deceased father’s parents — which the Centre must have known and consciously concealed. ### VI. DOUBLE ADOPTION, DISREGARD OF THE NEGATIVE 1984 ASSESSMENT, AND FALSE “PATERNAL CONSENT” On several occasions, including the earlier submission of 27 November 2025, the defendant supplies the file on incomplete adoption no. UP 02-987/84 concerning Periša and Gorgina Petrović, while stating that it considers that file “irrelevant”, because formally this action does not seek annulment of that adoption. However, the very facts: - that full adoption by Vasić Milorad and Gospava was already established in 1979, which the defendant does not dispute; and - that, in 1984, the same body — the Centre for Social Work in Novi Sad — participated in a second adoption by different adoptive parents, are directly contrary to Article 7 of the Adoption Act of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina then in force (1976), which provides that multiple persons cannot adopt one person unless they are married to one another. An already established full adoption cannot be “transferred” to a new married couple — that is precisely why it is called full adoption. Thus, the 1984 incomplete-adoption file is not irrelevant: it is evidence of the continuity of the defendant’s unlawful conduct: - first, full adoption in 1979 before the fifth birthday, without fulfilling the conditions under Article 30 — without the mother’s consent, effectively disregarding Pal Lakatoš’s paternity and probate proceedings O.196/79; - then “readoption” in 1984 by different adoptive parents, although full adoption already existed and would, under the law, exclude another round of adoption. This is compounded by another crucial element from the 1984 files:

The O.196/79 ruling names Milivoj Miletić as an heir with a one-quarter share. The 1979 adoption record renames him Vasić Milan; the 1984 record starts from Vasić Milan, born on 28 June 1974, and records the name Petrović Milan. The relation compares the recorded probate identity with the identity used in the second adoption through that explicit document chain.

4. minor Milivoj Miletić — 1/4 share