Court record / Primary source

Vasić divorce — child-blame framing and collapse of the first imposed Serbian adoptive frame

Court file showing the collapse of the Vasić household, the first imposed Serbian adoptive frame created by the 1979 full adoption. The file does not merely record divorce: it makes the child the neutral trigger of marital breakdown, contradicts itself between adoption language and “born in the marriage” language, records Gospava’s mastectomy only as a support/work-incapacity issue, and omits the violence and domestic terror that would expose the 1979 placement as a child-protection failure.

Municipal Court in Novi Sad 1982-09-20
The Vasić divorce file is not a neutral family-law record. It is the collapse record of the first imposed identity frame. The court record states that the Vasić marriage was harmonious for eighteen years, that the spouses had no children, and that disagreements began after the 21 June 1979 adoption of Milan. That formula turns the child into the explanation for the breakup and shields the earlier placement. The same file contradicts itself: Milan is described in places as adopted, while the complaint and court correspondence speak as if he was born in the marriage. The medical material records Gospava’s breast cancer, complete left-breast removal and work incapacity. The court uses those facts for support, not for child-protection analysis. The record also stays inside the sterile language of divorce, maintenance and 'disagreements over upbringing.' It does not name the violent domestic context described later in testimony: knife, slap, attempted flight to the railway tracks, hammer blow, abandonment, and the child watching the collapse. Naming that violence would have opened the central institutional question: how did CSR/SIZ Novi Sad place a child, through a rushed and contested 1979 full-adoption procedure, into a household that proved unstable, violent and protective only on paper? The omission does not protect the child. It protects the prior institutional act and lets the Vasić identity frame remain usable for the next 1984 adoption step.
Back to documents Open PDF Open annotated text

Related evidence

Bojana Vujić’s hearing: “how he came under their jurisdiction”, CSR opposition and an order for adoption records — 26 March 2025
Why this source is linked
Related source

The plaintiff retains the request for the Vasić divorce file P.1106/82 and the attached hearing record; Maja Petrović objects to their relevance, invoking the requirement that annulment grounds exist at adoption. The original divorce file is linked to compare the statements and the times they describe with that objection. The plaintiff’s separate withdrawal concerns obtaining Gospava’s health-centre history, not the divorce-file request.

The plaintiff states that he maintains his action and the claim made, and his evidentiary proposal that the witness **Vinka Ignjatić** of Budisava, Petefi Šandora 168, and her son **Dragan Ignjatić** be examined in these proceedings. They were neighbours of the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić and are acquainted with the fact that their marriage was dysfunctional even before the full adoption. He maintains his proposal to be examined as a party. He maintains his evidentiary proposal to inspect the Higher Court record already attached to the file, from the hearing in the divorce litigation of his adopters Gospava and Milorad. He maintains the proposal to request inspection of the file in which the marriage was dissolved, **P.1106/82**. He withdraws his evidentiary proposal to obtain officially from the Budisava Health Centre the medical record and medical history of his late adoptive mother Gospava Vasić. He proposes that the defendant be ordered to supply the documentation explaining how he **“came under their jurisdiction”**. These are his evidentiary proposals. He particularly emphasizes that, although at the previous hearing the court gave him the period he himself requested — 30 days to state whether he maintained the proposed witnesses or not — he did not properly understand what he was required to do. He therefore identified only Vinka Ignjatić of Budisava as a witness in his submission dated 10.03.2025, and at today’s hearing has stated that he also maintains the other proposed witnesses. The defendant’s representative states that she opposes the action and the claim in their entirety because the statutory conditions for annulment of the full adoption applicable when it was concluded are not fulfilled. She requests an additional period of **15 days**, during which I will provide a detailed written statement and supply the Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina containing the provisions. At today’s hearing I submit the social worker’s report in the search procedure for **Cvita Miletić**, dated **09.03.2005**. I oppose the evidentiary proposals to examine all the proposed witnesses about the dysfunctional marriage of the adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, since this is not a ground for annulment of the full adoption and such testimony by the proposed witnesses is questionable because of their indirect knowledge of the family circumstances. I agree that the plaintiff should be examined as a party and that the attached written documentation should be inspected, and I request 15 days to provide a detailed written statement and supply the then applicable Adoption Act of SAP Vojvodina which applied at the time of this plaintiff’s full adoption. She also opposes officially requesting inspection of the divorce litigation between the late adopters Gospava and Milorad Vasić, because it and the statements contained therein are not relevant to these proceedings for annulment of the full adoption, since the grounds for annulment must exist at the time the full adoption was established.
Open supporting passage
Author’s analysis: contradictions, falsifications and violations in the June 1979 CSR assessments
Why this source is linked
Related source

In the later correction, the author says the divorce records contain the marriage certificate confirming eighteen years, and withdraws his earlier doubt. His approximate recollection of obtaining the records is preserved without assigning an exact date.

The author explains that later, probably in July 2025 according to his approximate recollection, he obtained divorce records containing the Vasić marriage certificate. The certificate confirms the eighteen-year duration of the marriage, so he withdraws his earlier doubt about that information. The historical analysis above remains unchanged; the eighteen-year duration is no longer disputed by the author.
Open supporting passage