My experience with Rebecca Billick and Billick Mediation & Family Law

My concerns about the GAL process, how each parent's perspective was considered, record requests, and billing.

September 18, 2025 — my first meeting and the home-entry boundary

I reported an incident involving my former wife entering my family's residence after she was instructed in writing to remain outside and ring the doorbell. I shared the earlier messages and recall Rebecca acknowledging she had reviewed them. To me, the key question was why the boundary was crossed when permission had been denied.

Rebecca asked how far my former wife had entered past the landing area. I explained that I felt the entry itself mattered regardless of distance, and drew an analogy to my understanding of when a police officer can enter a home. This was my argument, not a legal finding that the entry was trespass or that the analogy governed. I declined to answer the distance question and questioned its relevance. I recall Rebecca becoming visibly frustrated, asserting she could require an answer, and insisting that our discussion would not continue until I responded. I also questioned whether the interview was voluntary.

A GAL may reasonably need details about how an incident occurred, including the distance entered. My concern was that the discussion began to focus on my unwillingness to answer rather than the underlying boundary issue. This is my recollection of an unrecorded meeting; my subsequent written complaint described the question, my objection and Rebecca's apparent frustration.

September 30, 2025 — did both parents' perspectives receive equal consideration?

Our second meeting was recorded and later transcribed. It covered my daughter's bedtime and school routines, a habit of chewing her hair, a code word we were using to help interrupt the habit, and ideas for a fidget bracelet. Throughout the meeting, I felt Rebecca gave substantial attention to the mother's explanations of routines and her preferences for how they should be handled. I did not feel my observations as her father always received the same weight.

For example, at the beginning of the meeting, I described a code word my daughter and I had developed to address the hair-chewing behavior and explained that it had been helping at my home. I also said I had reached out to her mother so we could coordinate. Rebecca clarified that she had asked us to do independent research first and that a joint plan was supposed to be discussed at the meeting, rather than developed through messages beforehand. She explicitly said she was not scrutinizing or attacking me. Nevertheless, I experienced that exchange as a correction of my initiative rather than a fuller exploration of what I was seeing and what was working during my parenting time.

As the conversation continued, the transcript shows extended discussion with my former wife about the child's word choices, the proposed bracelet, what the teacher might do, and bedtime arrangements. I participated and Rebecca did ask me questions, including about the word and my research. I am not claiming she never sought my input. My concern is that the questioning and follow-up often seemed to develop around the mother's account, while I felt I had to repeatedly explain or defend my own perspective.

That concern became especially apparent to me when we discussed school pickup times. My position was that, on my parenting days, I should be able to spend additional time with my daughter when I was available instead of leaving her at school after the instructional portion of the day. Her mother emphasized the importance of a consistent schedule and possible effects on the child's anxiety. Rebecca acknowledged that she would ordinarily favor a parent picking up a child early, but said she did not yet know which approach would best support this child's needs. She proposed asking school staff for neutral input before making a recommendation.

I recognize that seeking independent school feedback was an appropriate investigative step, and the transcript does not show Rebecca making a final determination during that discussion. Still, from my perspective, my desire for more parenting time appeared to require additional justification, while the mother's concern about preserving the existing routine was treated as a substantial reason for caution. This was one of several interactions that left me questioning whether our views were being evaluated with the same degree of openness.

During that pickup discussion I stated that I did not believe I had to answer every question, adding that the meeting was not a deposition. Rebecca responded, “You're going back to the anxiety response right now, so just take a deep breath.” My objection was to the way the discussion and my position were being framed. I felt that the remark shifted attention from my substantive point to a characterization of my emotions. It was not a formal medical diagnosis, but I disagreed with it.

When I compare this meeting with other issues I raised over time—such as the household boundary and the later school-event incident—I was left with the impression that concerns reported by my former wife often generated more detailed consideration, while my reports sometimes led to closer scrutiny of how I reacted. That is my assessment of the pattern, not proof that Rebecca was intentionally biased or that she failed to investigate my concerns. I believe readers should evaluate the recorded discussion and both parents' stated positions when deciding what weight to give my impression.

August 10, 2026 — a local school event and what preceded my intervention

At a local elementary school's back-to-school event, my former wife wanted an exception to the existing 3-4-4-3 parenting-time rotation that I believed would benefit her. I was asking to follow the existing rotation, not seeking to change it or initiate a dispute about an exchange. I declined her requested exception. According to my recollection, she then became visibly emotional and cried. I perceived it as a public scene, but I cannot establish her private reasons for becoming upset.

I recall an adult man I did not know embracing my former wife and our six-year-old daughter together. During the embrace, I believed I saw his hand on my daughter's buttocks. Concerned about the contact and not knowing the man, I tapped his elbow to interrupt the embrace and asked him not to touch my daughter. I recall him becoming confrontational, and police responded. These are my observations, not findings that the man acted with improper intentions or committed an offense.

I subsequently reported the incident to the school and Rebecca. Her correspondence addressed parenting-schedule questions, and billing records indicate that she reviewed related messages and materials, including a police report. I do not claim she ignored the event. My concern is whether the circumstances that prompted my intervention received the same weight as my reaction: the requested schedule exception, the distress I observed, and contact with my child by an unfamiliar adult. I cannot know how Rebecca evaluated every piece of information, and this account does not establish deliberate favoritism.

Parenting routines and investigative follow-up

Beyond the recorded meeting, I had questions about the GAL's recommendations concerning routines, parenting time and a proposed evaluation. I also wanted to understand how concerns I reported about adult behavior and boundaries were followed up. I could not identify every step of the investigation in the material available to me, but that does not establish that no follow-up occurred. I do not reproduce unverified allegations about other individuals.

Requesting my GAL file — what would the office charge?

After mediation I requested the GAL file on August 25, 2026 so I could review the basis for the work and recommendations. Rebecca said it would be provided “within 30 days” and advised that preparing it would involve charges. I was not demanding that all work be free. I sought a clear estimate or the actual hourly rate her office intended to apply to assembling and delivering its own file.

Our engagement agreement specified $200/hour for Rebecca, $90/hour for paralegal work and $40/hour for law-clerk work. Yet some bills showed a $300 GAL hourly rate and $100 staff rates. Given the apparent differences, I believe asking what rate would apply to this request was reasonable. Being referred to my attorney for general discovery costs or back to the contract did not directly answer my question about this particular office charge.

Indiana GAL Rule 3.11 addresses file access and potential copying costs, subject to applicable laws and protective orders. The applicability of the 2025 guidelines depends on the GAL's appointment date, which I have not independently confirmed. I am not claiming that preparing the file necessarily had to be free or that the current version of the rule necessarily governed my appointment. Official Indiana GAL Guidelines.

According to my records, I received materials through Dropbox on October 26, 2026, 62 calendar days after my request and about 32 days beyond the stated period. I have not verified the exact Dropbox timestamp independently; correspondence confirms I had materials by October 29. When I asked about items I could not identify, Rebecca said recommendations had been sent in emails, typed notes were included, court filings were available through the docket and she could check for specified missing items. I cannot establish that materials were intentionally withheld.

Billing-rate comparisons

One November 18, 2025 entry listed Rebecca at $300/hour rather than the signed $200/hour. Because it represented 0.1 hour, the apparent difference on that line was $10. Other staff work billed at $100/hour appeared higher than the contracted $90 paralegal rate, assuming the staff classification was paralegal.

The total is preliminary, may not reflect later corrections or allocation between parents, and is not proof of intentional overbilling. Rebecca subsequently explained that a billing-software transition had caused problems, said she believed final invoices had been corrected and offered to review them again. I appreciated the response.

Another family's invoice sent to me in error

Rebecca acknowledged mistakenly sending me an invoice from another family, apologized and asked me to delete it. She explained the document had previously been filed in public court records and referred to the office's billing-software transition. I found the error concerning, but it does not independently establish an unlawful disclosure. I have not published the other family's information.

My conclusion and recommendation

My concerns developed over many interactions. I felt that the reasons behind my objections and the information I provided did not always receive the same consideration as my former wife's positions, particularly in discussions about routines and my reaction to reported incidents. I also had concerns about the file-request process, billing entries and document handling. These are my own assessments, not formal findings of professional wrongdoing.

Based on my personal experience, I do not recommend using Rebecca Billick or Billick Mediation & Family Law. I strongly encourage families to consider other qualified GALs or family-law professionals. Others may have different experiences; I encourage readers to make their own informed decisions.