why is called the SCs home when it isn't?

Op, I assume from all your posts that you have a unique definition of "home".

Your definition seems to be roughly "a property one lives in and has an ownership stake in"

I assume by your logic that every single person in the UK who is renting is technically homeless as they could be asked to leave and therefore do not have a home.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary the definition of home is:

"the house, apartment, etc. Where you live, especially with your family"

By that definition a house where children live even EoW with their father is a home. The ownership does not matter, it is the fact that they live there that makes it a home.

Now if you want to get semantic you could start using slightly different phrases to make your argument better.

The father has a home but is not a homeowner so yes the partner could ask him to leave and the children would become homeless EoW until the father finds a new home.

And this is the issue with many many male parents they’re utterly incapable of providing an actual home for their child. And so they need to get in on some of the poor woman’s household.

Which puts the child/ren in a precarious position.
Literally there at the Goodwill of the other person.

It makes me laugh no end when I speak to people on dating sites about how the X took the house. My ex squandered away the equity, i had to house myself and the children without the use of benefits or any of the other accusations that get thrown around. That men would be equally entitled to if they qualified. They just can’t be bothered.

Yes, feels like OP has had a personality transplant and is no making sensible statements!

i cant quite figure out why you are tying yourself in knots to say that children don’t have a home with dad in particular circumstances.

the reality is that good parents don’t move their children into housing with relationships that aren’t settled and housing that isn’t shared equally. They don’t put their children into a position like you are describing in the first place. A woman who hosts a man that would do this should be rethinking her relationship choices.

If a dad lets his kid feel like they are visiting and that his home is not their home then he is a bad parent.

The house their father lives at is their home. If he left (voluntarily or being asked to leave) then wherever he is going to live thereafter will become their home. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the children would lose the home and therefore shouldn't call it their home in the first place. But they don't lose their home when the dad moves out. They just no longer call that house their home and a different abode will be their home when visiting dad.
I admittedly don't fully understand your scenario though, because if the house owner and the dad are in a relationship and these children are part of the family set up then surely the breakdown of the relationship is much more than just the loss of address, unless the homeowner never wants to be close to these children due to how easily these ties could be severed.

This is such a strange thread. What is your actual question Op? Because countless posters have explained that a child’s home is where their parent is living (irrespective of who owns the actual physical property). But you don’t agree and just keep arguing!

Isn't this argument entirely with AI?

If your name is not on the tenancy agreement and you are not married or in a civil partnership with the tenant, you generally do not have an automatic right to stay in the property if the tenant asks you to leave. However, you may be able to apply to the court for an occupation order, which could allow you to stay for a limited time (usually 6 to 12 months) particularly if you have children.

@cardycard

“What matters most is staying focused on what's best for the kids in whatever situation comes up, and making thoughtful, caring choices along the way.”

If that was really how you felt you wouldn’t be so hung up on the non detail of what is officially someone’s home and isn’t. People are what makes a home not tenancy agreements. Wherever they can be with their Dad is home.

Was just thinking the same.

My immediate thoughts were not who owns this, whose right is that, it was purely - those poor kids.

Having been that child and my husband experiencing exactly the same, we have both said that should we split up, we would never co-habit with another person until our children are grown up and living elsewhere. And categorically would never want to have further children with a new partner.

It's always the kids that suffer at the hands of their selfish bloody parents. Always.

OP - which party are you in the scenario? The home owner, the parent with kids moving in, the other parent, a former step kid who was blindsided by losing their home?

Because it is their home aswell. When my boys are with their dad I always say let me know when you get home meaning their dad's house and when they are with me I'll say do you know when you are coming home.

Home is someone's main residence I.e the place they sleep at the most.

The child's "Home" can be owned by the child's parents, or a landlord.

Calling a place your home and living there does NOT give you rights to the property.. The only person who has that is the owner.

Maybe avoid living together as a blended family if you want to avoid 'Home' confusion.

But you said being married gave them both the same equal rights. Wrong.

If only one name is on the tenancy, then they do not .
You can’t even keep your own ideas straight.

‘That’s very different from someone moving into a partner’s home without marriage or any legal agreement. Without that formal commitment, there’s no shared legal foundation giving both people equal security in the home. So while the situations might look similar on the surface, the rights and stability created by marriage make them fundamentally different.‘

Someone is not going to just move in.
That’s phrased to suggest the person already living there bears no responsibility or say in whether they move in or not. The house resident must have extended an invitation to the other to move in with or without formal or legal agreement.

To invite someone to live in without first discussing dependents is plain daft

It’s still a tenancy, so not theirs. If only one name is on the tenancy, should they split up, one has more rights than the other. ‘In a sole tenancy, only one person is legally responsible for the tenancy and all associated obligations. In a joint tenancy, multiple people share the responsibilities and rights of the tenancy. ‘

I agree with all that.

But as an example of the case I mentioned, husband dies and wife is then given the tenancy as it can be passed down once. Wife then dies, but DD still living at home isn't allowed to take on the tenancy as it's already been passed down once. If husband and wife had both been on the original tenancy, DD would have legally been allowed to then have the tenancy. So from a legal point of view it made a huge difference!

Going back to your original point, my DC would stay with their DF EOW, but they never considered it to be their home. Their home was with me. Their friends were here and they went to school here. However, DF had his own Council property (was originally in a privately rented bedsit when he left the marital home), so there were no other adults involved. When he lived in the bedsit, he just used to take them out for the day every Sunday. It never would have occurred to me to have a DP move in when he had his DC EOW, not least because there wouldn't have been room! Plus, it wouldn't have been fair on my own DC.

@cardycard I suggest you let go of all the bitterness you’re holding on to this situation.

You can’t control who your ex is in a relationship with and if you continue to want to die on the hill of the tiny detail of where your ex lives and where your children are spending time with him you’re going to cause irreversible damage to the relationship you have with your children.

It doesn’t matter if your ex is living with Ronald McDonald and the kids are calling that place their second home. Focus on making your time when your children are with you happy and positive and let your ex focus on his relationship with his kids when he has them.