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

No, unless she is married to the man it is up to him to provide another home for his children.
Don’t marry a man if you have your own home and he doesn’t.

What is your point Op? Why are you posting?
All you’re doing is arguing with everyone who sees it differently to you.
Why don’t you just talk straight instead of in riddles and then someone may be able to actually help you and give you advice

I don't think you know what home means

I know a father who has his son EOW and moved in with his partner. 2 bed house. They got rid of the bed from the spare room, to create a nursery for the new baby, and his son had to sleep on the sofa. He felt pushed out of the new family - they clearly didn't want him there as they got rid of "his" bed. It's really sad and now the boy is saying he doesn't want to go there. If you take on a partner with children, you make everyone feel welcome - it's not the SC's fault that they have to have 2 homes, but both places should feel like home.

I think that anyone who starts dating / living with a partner with children needs to get these things sorted out way before the move. If a partner is not able to accept the children and partner as a family then it's never going to work.
If you're adamant it's your house, you won't even use comforting words to his children that's it's their EOW home with daddy, then it's probably best to date men with no baggage - not ideal but you need to tell him you're not interested in embracing him and his kids. If he's done with that then red flag because you'll find yourself in the same position potentially risky if you fall pregnant too

It isn't their home.

If the father is living with someone who solely owns the home, it's his place of residence, not his home and that could change at any time.

So it's not his children's home and he isn't providing them a home, just a place to stay a couple nights a week.

Think if he moved in with a male friend for a bit. Would it be considered his home? No. Would it be considered his kids' home? No.

I think you’re confused about a home being a permanent thing.

There’s a difference between having a home and having security.

Most homes aren’t 100% secure but the amount of security depends on whether you own or rent, whether your name is on the deeds or tenancy etc.

I am in rented housing and it is 100% mine and my children’s home.
But I don’t have 100% security as my landlord could choose to sell and the next place we live will then become our home.

If someone moves in with you then it is 100% their home.
If they have kids then the parents home automatically becomes their home too.
That does not equal security though.

You may own the building but you share your home.

All homes are temporary. When you rent, it's often very temporary, when you move in with a partner it might be temporary, everyone acknowledges that but it is no less a home because you will likely leave and live somewhere else at some point. That is true for the bloke in your scenario and his kids (and the woman to the extent that she won't live where she lives now, forever).

You had to fill out a form before you posted this thread? I posted a thread a few days ago and I didn't have to fill out a form I just clicked a button.

Correct.
It Is the parent’s responsibility to provide a home for their children. If they choose to risk their children’s stability by moving in to someone else’s home, rather than setting up their own home, that’s on the parent. At no point does it become the responsibility of the home owning partner.

Such an odd thread. Of course it's their home. It might well be a temporary home. it may well be that it's a home they could lose at any time. But while their father is living there and they are spending time with him in that home, it is their home.

And even families in stable, loving relationships, married, with both names on the deed and the mortgage may lose their home or change homes. Something being called a "home" doesn't mean it's there forever or that it's completely safe forever.

I would recommend that any parent who chooses to move in with a partner or who moves their partner in, consider the long term impact on their children both of the original move and the potential for any future moves. That sholdnt be rocket science, but it's amazing how often it is.

Also, I have 100% seen (on here only, admittedly, not in real life) the issue where a relationship breaks up, the person who is expected to leave (with their children) feels their children's home has been taken from them (by the person who is staying). But whether or not that's true is irrelevant.

Home for a split family are Mum or Dads house when M or D are paying mortgage/rent or children live somewhere for more than EOW, 50/50.
So their primary carer's house would be their home IYSWIM.
If the parent lives in someone else's home then the children should know that it's x or y's house but home is the parent not the bricks and mortar.

A temporary home would be something the parent knows is temporary, like emergency accommodation or an Airbnb etc. They would probably have to put most of their belongings in storage ready for their more permanent home which would be a rented property, their partner’s property or their own property or a relative’s property.

I think the onus is on you to pay for your kids but if you allow a man with children to move in with you and don't ask him to pay that doesn't make it not the children's home.

Home in this case is where a child resides, be it one day or full time. Who pays for the home is irrelevant. If a parent lives there and a child lives there on certain days it’s their home. While the relationship is ongoing it’s the SC home, maybe their part time home, but still a home. Should the relationship break down and the parent moved out, then that property ceases to be the SC’s home. No one can force a couple to remain together - but a parent must provide a home of sorts. This could be a temporary one like an Airbnb I would have thought. It’s not about ownership.

Then that's on the father who has allowed his children to get embroiled in a situation where he is a precarious cohabitee and isn't providing a stable home for his own children.

You see a lot of co-habiting mothers warned about this - even when you have biological children together, if you aren't married and you are not on the deeds, your stability is dependent on the whims of the homeowner and we all know that plenty of men will think nothing of making their own kids homeless to punish their ex partners, let alone step kids.

How would you like it to be specified? The physical place where our SM permits us to spend EOW with our father, whilst making us very aware that this is not our home, and we should never refer to it as such, lest people think we are actually family.

Who may also not own her home. Still the children’s home though.

er yes - if it is his home, then it is his dc home too.

what is the issue?

Marriage doesn’t change this though.

I feel like if I'm in a serious enough relationship to be living with someone and having their children live with us some of the time then it's all of our home and we are a big family.

I would make sure I was financially protected if it was my house and not his but ideally we would pool funds and buy somewhere bigger together.

In situations where one or both parties have kids and you want to live together one person needs to move in with the other before committing to a mortgage and marriage together.

It’s not a secret, it’s something no child should have to worry about because they cannot buy or live in a home independently.

This doesn't sound true. Nobody can force people to stay together, not even social workers.

When it’s not. That’s daft.

its like saying it immoral for a woman to be the breadwinner.

its her house, its not his house and not his kids house, and even the most naive of SC know this. Their home is far more likely to be the one they share most time with their mother.