Bilik & Bilik
[2025] FedCFamC2F 1069
•25 July 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bilik & Bilik [2025] FedCFamC2F 1069
File number(s): MLC 10748 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY Date of judgment: 25 July 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Contravention application – where the father alleges 6 counts of contravention – where the father alleges contravention of the final orders of 2022 – where the father alleges contravention of the 2023 orders – where the mother has been found to have previously contravened the orders in 2023 – where the mother enters into a bond – where there be three conditions of that bond. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 rr 1.31, 10.13, 11.64 & 11.69 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 32 Date of hearing: 25 July 2025 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Peters Solicitor for the Applicant: BTT Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Thistleton Solicitor for the Respondent: Kaj Sharma Legal ORDERS
MLC 10748 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BILIK
Applicant
AND: MS BILIK
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JULY 2025
UPON THE COURT FINDING THAT:
A.The Court is satisfied that Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Contravention Application (‘the Contravention Application’) filed 2 January 2025 are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Mother, Ms Bilik (‘the Mother’) has contravened the orders of 24 October 2022 and 20 December 2023. Those counts are as follows:
(a)Count 1: The Respondent has failed to attend upon and complete a post-separation parenting program.
(b)Count 2: The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the children to spend time with the Applicant for his birthday.
(c)Count 3: The Respondent without reasonable excuse, failed to provide her telephone number to the Applicant.
(d)Count 4: The Respondent without reasonable cause, fails to facilitate any telephone or video time after saying she does not have a telephone.
B.The Court is satisfied that Count 6 of the Contravention Application is proven on the balance of probabilities and that the Mother has contravened the orders of 24 October 2022. That count is as follows:
(a) Count 6: The Respondent without reasonable excuse has unreasonably refused permission for the Applicant to travel overseas with the children.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Count 5 of the Contravention Application be and is dismissed.
2.The Mother, enter into a bond with a surety of $1,000 payable to the Commonwealth of Australia upon non-compliance of these orders (and the orders of 24 October 2022) with the following conditions:
(a)The Mother complete the post-separation parenting course that was enrolled in on Wednesday, 23 July 2025 and once completed, notify and provide to the Father by email documentary evidence of the completion of this course within 14 days of completion;
(b)To be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years; and
(c)To comply with the Orders of 24 October 2022 as varied, and the orders of 25 July 2025.
3.Order 9 of the orders of 29 March 2023 be and is discharged.
4.Order 14 of the orders of 24 October be and is discharged.
5.The Mother do all acts and things to cause and ensure that the children communicate with the Father, Mr Bilik (‘the Father’), via electronic communication with the Mother to facilitate the call each Tuesday night from 6.30pm – 7.00pm and in the event the Father would not be available because of work (transport worker) to take the call, the Father notify the Mother by the Thursday of his availability and that telephone call occur on the next day when he is available at the same time.
6.The Mother provide, and make available to the children, a mobile phone with a working sim card with a minimum of $30 per month for the purpose of the Father and Ms B (the father’s partner) to speak with the Mother in relation to the children and/or to call the Father for the purpose of these orders.
7.The Mother do all acts and things to cause and ensure the children’s current psychologist (‘the psychologist’) provides his details to the Father and all other information or details from the psychologist that the Mother is entitled to.
8.The Mother do all acts and things to cause and ensure that any psychologist and/or counsellor the children attend upon involves the Father and that the Father be notified of all appointments and any such information as the Mother is entitled to.
9.In the event either of the parties make a complaint or report to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing and/or Victoria Police, they provide, at the time of the complaint or report a copy of the following documents:
(a)A copy of these sealed orders;
(b)A copy of the orders of 20 December 2023;
(c)A copy of the orders of 24 October 2022; and
(d)A copy of the reasons for these orders (when available).
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A. The Court is satisfied that on numerous occasions the Mother has not advised the Father of times the children have been sick as required by Order 24 of the orders of 24 October 2022.
BIt is agreed between the parents that the next time the children are required to spend time with the Father is 31 July 2025.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE O’SHANNESSY
These are the settled reasons of a judgment delivered ex tempore. These reasons were delivered orally. These settled reasons have been corrected from the transcript where appropriate to correct grammatical errors, to add citations, passages of authorities and evidence, and to attempt to make the orally delivered reasons easier to read. The substance is unchanged.
Background
The matter of Bilik & Bilik comes before me on the hearing of a contravention application this day. Both parties were represented by counsel, and I was assisted by counsel's robust but skilled representation of their clients. There were six counts alleged against Ms Bilik (‘the Mother’) and they are as follows:
(1)Count 1: The Respondent has failed to attend upon and complete a post-separation parenting program in contravention of the enforcement orders of 20 December 2023.[1]
(2)Count 2: The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, refused to allow the children to spend time with the Applicant for his birthday in Contravention of the final orders of 24 October 2022.
(3)Count 3: The Respondent without reasonable excuse, failed to provide her telephone number to the Applicant in Contravention of the final orders of 24 October 2022.
(4)Count 4: The Respondent without reasonable cause, fails to facilitate any telephone or video time after saying she does not have a telephone in Contravention of the final orders of 24 October 2022.
(5)Count 5: The Respondent without reasonable cause, has failed to notify the Applicant if the children have been ill or in hospital and provided the father liberty to speak and attend the children’s medical practitioners in Contravention of the final orders of 24 October 2022.
(6)Count 6: The Respondent without reasonable excuse has unreasonably refused permission for the Applicant to travel overseas with the children in Contravention of the final orders of 24 October 2022.
[1] On 20 December 2023, Judge Glass had found the Mother contravened the final parenting orders on 5 separate occasions without a reasonable excuse and ordered the mother to enrol and complete a post-separation parenting course and to enter into a bond. The orders did not specify a time of when the Mother was to enter this bond and as discussed with counsel, I applied that without a time limit, orders mean a thing is to be done “forthwith” or “immediately”.
I adopted the procedure under Rule 11.69 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (‘the Rules’).
Rule 11.69 Procedure at hearing
At the hearing of an application referred to in item 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Table 11.1, the court must:
(a) inform the respondent of the allegation; and
(b)ask the respondent whether the respondent wishes to admit or deny the allegation; and
(c) hear any evidence supporting the allegation; and
(d) ask the respondent to state the response to the allegation; and
(e) hear any evidence for the respondent; and
(f) determine the proceeding.
Issue with the application
One issue was that neither the contravention application or affidavit as filed did not have annexed to it as required by the Rules, the Court orders of 24 October 2022 or the orders of 20 December 2023.[2]
[2] The affidavit filed with the application attached the 20 December 2023 orders but not the 24 October 2022 orders and that point was taken by counsel for the Mother. The court was addressed on the basis that the orders alleged to be contravened should be attached to the application rather than with the contemporaneously filed affidavit but nothing turned on this.
Rule 11.64 How to apply for an order
…
(2)A person filing an application referred to in Table 11.1 must file with it an affidavit that:
(a)states the facts necessary to enable the court to make the orders sought in the application; and
(b)for an application referred to in item 1 of Table 11.1--has attached to it a copy of any order, bond, agreement or undertaking that the court is asked to enforce or that is alleged to have been contravened.
…
(3)The affidavit filed with an application referred to in item 3 of Table 11.1 must also state:
(a)whether a court has previously found that the respondent contravened the primary order without reasonable excuse; and
(b) the details of any finding made under paragraph (a), including:
(i) the date and place of the finding; and
(ii) the court that made the finding; and
(iii)the terms of the finding in sufficient detail to show that the finding related to a previous contravention by the respondent of the primary order.
After hearing submissions, I ruled that the requirement to have the applicable orders attached to the affidavit support the contravention application be dispensed with, settled pursuant to rule 1.31.
Rule 1.31 Court may make orders or dispense with these Rules
(1)The court may, in the interests of justice, dispense with compliance, or full compliance, with any of these Rules at any time.
(2)If, in a proceeding, the court gives a direction or makes an order that is inconsistent with any of these Rules, the direction or order of the court prevails in that proceeding.
Pleadings
In the procedure, I permitted counsel to admit or deny each of the counts rather than having counsel stand silent whilst his client (the Mother) addressed me. The Mother initially pleaded:
(1)Count 1: Not guilty on the basis she had a reasonable excuse.
(2)Count 2: Guilty.
(3)Count 3: Not guilty on the basis that she had a reasonable excuse.
(4)Count 4: Not guilty on the basis she had a reasonable excuse.
(5)Count 5: Not guilty.
(6)Count 6: Not guilty.
The plea of not guilty was intended to be and clearly understood by all concerned as being, in terms of rule 11.69, a statement of denying the allegation which included that the order was contravened without a reasonable excuse.
Change in position
Following the father giving evidence and being cross-examined after the luncheon adjournment, Ms Bilik, through her counsel, changed her plea and pleaded:
(1)Count 1: Guilty
(2)Count 2: Guilty
(3)Count 3: Guilty
(4)Count 4: Guilty
Ms Bilik maintained a plea of not guilty (that is a denial of the contravention) for counts 5 and 6.
Ms Bilik’s evidence
Ms Bilik came to the witness box and gave sworn evidence and relied upon an affidavit filed 12 February 2025. In addition, Ms Bilik tendered the section 67ZBE report dated 3 April 2025 as M1 and an email chain, exhibit M2.
M2 related to a birthday issue (and Count 2)and went to the issue of mitigation in terms of the plea of guilty (or admission of contravention). But the point of M2 needs to be taken in the context that the father's birthday is … of each year, that is, the day these parties understand that the orders clearly provide that the parties are to ensure that the orders are otherwise suspended so that the children can spend the time specified in the order with the father. The Mother put forward that she had offered make up time in regard to not making the children available on his birthday.
The father gave evidence that he was told and understood that the reason the children were not made available on his birthday was because they had a birthday function of their cousins. Sensibly, the mother ultimately pleaded guilty to Count 2.
Orders must be complied with
It needs to be made clear that the orders are the orders, and it is not up to either parent to not comply with them. By way of example, if Mr Bilik was to decide that an additional day on his weekend was a good idea because he had a relative who had a birthday, and he would keep the children for an extra day, that would be a breach of the order. That would be contravening the order. Likewise, for Ms Bilik to determine that there was something else more important (in her view, more important to the children than complying with the orders about the father's birthday) that would be a contravention of the order.
But the point is the birthday was on …, and it was in May (a Thursday) that the mother contacted the father by email and proposed that on that following weekend, the father's time commencing that Thursday, that he would be able to keep the children over the period on the following Saturday (of 9am to 1pm). That is the time under the orders the children would otherwise be entitled to be with her on X’s birthday. I take that into account.
The point is that the proposal (if that is to be regarded as make up time), was not made at any time prior to …. It was made much later and was simply determined by the mother. Nonetheless, that proposal of the additional time is something that I do take into account in regard to the penalty.
As it turned out, the father was unable to exercise that time that weekend at all because, he said, of an illness. He advised that his partner was available to pick up the children, but he respected the mother's position that that was not her preferred option, and I am satisfied that the father's sensitivity to having the children picked up by his partner, as he would have been entitled to do under the orders, was sensitive to the mother's sensitivity to the involvement of his partner in the children's lives.[3]
[3] The applicable orders do not prevent the Father’s partner being involved in the children’s lives during the Father’s court ordered time with the children.
Counts 1-4
In terms of counts 1 to 4, taking into account the affidavit of evidence and the mother's explanations (or lack of them) and her demeanour in the witness box causes me to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Ms Bilik contravened the orders.
Count 5
In regard to count 5, that was dismissed, as Mr Bilik could not satisfy me that on 28 September 2024, the mother did not contact him about the children regarding their illness because there is no evidence the children were sick and it appears likely the children were with him that day during school holiday time. I do note that I am so satisfied that the Mother, on numerous occasions, has not advised the Father of the times when the children have been sick in her care.
Count 6
In regard to count 6, the reason I am satisfied on the serious civil standard but not on the higher criminal standard is that, at this time, the mother had been reporting matters to the Child Protection authorities, who had been involved in an investigatory phase but had never taken any steps to revoke or override the applicable final orders.
Nonetheless, the uncertainty about Child Protection involvement means that I have not placed out of my mind that the mother may have thought that she was entitled by the involvement of Child Protection (to the extent they were involved and they were involved often) to not comply with the orders. That is not the case.
The fact that a Child Protection officer is investigating a claim of abuse does not suspend the orders that the Court has made. It is for those reasons I am only satisfied of that contravention on the balance of probabilities.
I also take into account that in 2025 the father proposed, during the first term school holidays of 2025, that he would take the children overseas to visit C Venue as well as his family. I simply do not accept that the children would not want to attend C Venue with the father. They are the reasons why I am satisfied those orders are made out.
Variation of orders
As discussed with the parties, I will vary, pursuant to Rule 10.13 of the Rules, the orders of 2022 by both deleting and remaking the telephone time orders to the effect that the telephone time will be each Tuesday between 6.30 and 7.00 pm, but with the mother to initiate the call and with the father to have advised the mother by the Thursday of the week prior if, as a result of work issues, he is not going to be available to take the call and, in that case, he is to nominate the next day that he will be available at those times to take the call and the call is to be made at those times.
I am, as discussed with the parties, also satisfied that the order of the Chief Judge relating to the provision of a telephone should be discharged and effectively be remade but with a different onus. For the reasons discussed with counsel, I am also satisfied that there should be an order on both parties to ensure that both parties authorise any psychologist, counsellor or therapist that the children consult and be directed to include both parents in any therapy and to authorise any counsellor or therapist to provide to each of the parents any information that either parent would be entitled to and to bring to any therapist involved the provisions of paragraph 2 of the orders of 24 October. That is and I read:
(2) the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
In fact, that means the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for decisions relating to the long-term welfare of the children including education and health, and that includes psychological health.
Penalty
I am satisfied that Ms Bilik should enter into a bond[4] as penalty for her contravention with a surety. I take into account that the Mother has previously been found to have contravened the 24 October 2022 orders and was placed on a bond without surety on 20 December 2023. She was ordered to undertake a post-separation course and she did not. In the last week she has enrolled in one.
[4] The Father sought that the Mother enter into a bond.
The terms of the surety are:
I acknowledge that I owe the Commonwealth of Australia the sum of $1000 to be made and levied on my property, real or personal, for the use of the Commonwealth if I fail to meet the conditions as set out below.
It is not payable unless there is a failure.
The conditions of this bond are to complete the post-separation parenting course that was enrolled in on Wednesday, 23 July 2025 and, once completed, notify and provide to the father, by email, documentary evidence of the completion of the course within 14 days of completion. I am satisfied this is to be done 14 days from when the Mother completes that course.
The second condition is to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. This means to be of good behaviour about the obligations under the Court orders and the parenting of the children. It does not relate to parking tickets, speeding tickets or whatever else. It is to be of good behaviour in regard to parenting and the applicable parenting orders.
The third condition is to comply with the orders of 24 October 2022 as varied and the orders of this day, 25 July 2025.
Those are my reasons.
I certify that the preceding thirty-two (32) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy. Associate:
Dated: 6 August 2025
0
0
1