Page 2 | why is called the SCs home when it isn't?

cardycard · 2025-07-04T11:55:41+00:00

I keep seeing this scenario. Woman with her own house. She is paying for the bills. Her DP moves in. His kids come EOW. Why do so many people say it is the SC's home?

Original poster

cardycard · 06/07/2025 13:35

CheerUpPeterReid · 06/07/2025 11:34

Has someone hacked your account OP? Why didn't you save everyone a lot of time and just posted coherent, sensible posts like that in the first place?

Agreed. My posts were expressed quite poorly.

OP posts:

Original poster

cardycard · 06/07/2025 13:34

Minglingpringle · 06/07/2025 13:28

What’s your point though? Do you think people should stop calling it the kids’ home? Seems a bit harsh on the kids, as it could make them feel more rootless. It’s nice to have a home. As a kid, the legalities don’t matter much, it’s how things feel. Yes, things could go wrong and they could have to move out, but that’s true of almost any home to a greater or lesser extent. Life can be precarious but you can still enjoy it while it lasts.

Or so you think the man should have avoided moving in with the woman?

Or something else?

My point isn’t that kids should never call it their home or that anyone should tell them they can’t feel at home. It’s that the adults need to think carefully before creating a situation where kids could lose what they believe is their home if the relationship ends. Kids need stability, and it’s up to the adults to make sure they’re not setting them up for unnecessary upheaval.

I don’t think it’s wrong for the man to move in with the woman if they’re both committed to giving the children a real sense of security. But if the relationship isn’t stable or there’s no plan for a long-term future, it might be better to wait before blending households so the children don’t get attached to a home they might lose.

It’s not about denying children the feeling of home but about adults being honest and responsible so that “home” truly means safety and stability, not something that can disappear overnight.

OP posts:

EmeraldShamrock000 · 06/07/2025 13:30

Easy solution, don't allow a partner who has children move into your home.

Minglingpringle · 06/07/2025 13:28

What’s your point though? Do you think people should stop calling it the kids’ home? Seems a bit harsh on the kids, as it could make them feel more rootless. It’s nice to have a home. As a kid, the legalities don’t matter much, it’s how things feel. Yes, things could go wrong and they could have to move out, but that’s true of almost any home to a greater or lesser extent. Life can be precarious but you can still enjoy it while it lasts.

Or so you think the man should have avoided moving in with the woman?

Or something else?

Original poster

cardycard · 06/07/2025 13:21

BooneyBeautiful · 06/07/2025 12:42

Actually, if you have an elderly married couple living in the same Council house they rented in the late 1950s/60s, the woman's name will not be on the rental agreement as only the man's went on it in those days. According to you, it's not her home then?

Show quote history

That’s a good example, but I think it highlights why context matters. In the case of an elderly married couple, they have a legal and social partnership that gives both of them rights and responsibilities in the home, even if only one name is on the tenancy. Marriage creates a shared legal and financial life, so the home belongs to both in practice and often in law.

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.

OP posts:

BooneyBeautiful · 06/07/2025 12:42

cardycard · 04/07/2025 17:25

Is her name on the property?

It is not just about paying bills. Such a strange thought.

Show quote history

Actually, if you have an elderly married couple living in the same Council house they rented in the late 1950s/60s, the woman's name will not be on the rental agreement as only the man's went on it in those days. According to you, it's not her home then?

BooneyBeautiful · 06/07/2025 12:31

cardycard · 04/07/2025 14:47

So it is his home because he lives there but not legally and he has no say over the property he lives in? Just a temporary home then.

Show quote history

That's subjective. What period of time do you consider to be temporary? Two weeks? Six months? Two years?

BooneyBeautiful · 06/07/2025 12:26

cardycard · 04/07/2025 14:19

It is different if you are the homeowner and your name is on the deeds then you do own the home. If you rent or live with someone with your kids sometimes, it is not your home or it is a temporary home.

Edited

Show quote history

If you still have a mortgage, then technically, the lender owns part of your home, so it still isn't yours. I think your home is where you live the majority of the time. Whether you own or rent is neither here nor there.

When my two DC were younger, they would go to their DF's every other weekend. I would just tell people that they were at their dad's or had gone to their dad's for the weekend. None of us ever considered it to be their home. Probably because he was a bit of a slob, so it wouldn't have felt homely to them. They were primary school aged at the time.

Identityisacrisiscantyousee · 06/07/2025 11:47

Hmm I wonder if the OP is the mother in this scenario, her ex has moved in with his girlfriend, and she is not happy with her dc referring to gf's house as 'home' 🤷‍♀️

DaisyChain505 · 06/07/2025 11:37

So basically @cardycard Ex husband is wanting to have his kids spend tine at the house he lives in with his partner and OP is being difficult and saying no and using the non argument that it’s “not his house” to justify keeping these children away from their dad.

CheerUpPeterReid · 06/07/2025 11:34

Has someone hacked your account OP? Why didn't you save everyone a lot of time and just posted coherent, sensible posts like that in the first place?

Original poster

cardycard · 06/07/2025 11:06

Minglingpringle · 06/07/2025 10:25

Their home is wherever their dad is. If he moves home, they move home.

Happens a lot, not just in this scenario.

Show quote history

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that for kids, feeling connected to a parent is a big part of feeling at home. But the physical and legal reality of where they live matters too. If their dad is living somewhere without any rights or security, then their sense of home is built on something that could fall apart quickly. That can be really destabilising for children if things don’t work out.

It’s one thing when a family moves together into a stable new home, but it’s different if the parent’s living situation depends entirely on someone else’s willingness to let them stay. Kids deserve more certainty than that. Their emotional connection to their dad is essential, but they also need a home that’s secure and reliable.

OP posts:

Minglingpringle · 06/07/2025 10:25

cardycard · 04/07/2025 14:18

It is their temporary home yes that it is only there as long as the relationship lasts.

Show quote history

Their home is wherever their dad is. If he moves home, they move home.

Happens a lot, not just in this scenario.

Donsyb · 06/07/2025 00:25

What does it matter and why do you care so much OP?

Wishitsnows · 05/07/2025 23:38

I guess the children wouldn’t see it as their home. Just a house that their dad lives in.

ChampagneBlossom44 · 05/07/2025 23:24

@Nikki75 i feel a bit more like it’s ’evil Father’ than stepmother sometimes in situations like this. If dads moved in with a woman who’s this obsessed with the dictionary definition of ‘home’ and how her house is definitely not ‘their home’ then their dad needs to get on rightmove pronto. I don’t have my own kids but I’d be devastated if my husbands kids didn’t feel welcome or happy here. They should never be made to feel insecure or unwelcome. They’re only kids & have no real power over their situation, if a person can’t be kind as a stepparent they really shouldn’t be one

Nikki75 · 05/07/2025 21:33

Sounds like a scenario where it's the wicked stepmother... maybe don't have relationships with men who have children .

ChampagneBlossom44 · 05/07/2025 20:58

Not in my experience.

SKs mum contacted me years ago quite furiously, with bulletpoints to make sure I knew:

her kids will never have 2 homes
they will only have one home
that home is hers

no idea what set this off, I’d certainly not alluded to my house being their home to either her or the kids.

I don’t mind / or even disagree, my own parents were split & my main residence was home and my dads house was ‘dads house’.

especially in families when it’s not 50/50, it’s up to the kids what they call each house & I’m not forcing some ‘this IS your home’ narrative on them.

it’s actually more the people who have no say whatsoever in our family, who have never been divorced or a stepkid themselves who insist it’s THE KIDS HOME, not the kids themselves who are quite bemused when granny & aunties keep insisting this.

wordler · 05/07/2025 20:57

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:56

That’s a fair point, and I can see how it might have come across that way. My main concern has always been about the stability and security of the children, but the issue of the man not contributing financially or having legal standing in the home is part of that. If he’s not contributing or doesn’t have any rights to the property, it makes the living situation inherently insecure for him and, by extension, for his children when they stay there.

It’s not about punishing him for not paying, but about recognising that without contribution or legal rights, he and his children have no real security in the home. That’s why I think parents should be cautious about these arrangements. It’s about protecting the kids from the risk of suddenly losing what they thought was a safe place if the relationship ends.

Show quote history

But why do you think parents are not being cautious about this?

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:56

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:52

I agree that parents should be careful about moving into insecure living arrangements to protect their children from being unsettled if it goes wrong. But that’s not how you started this thread or the point you’ve been arguing so emphatically. It was all about the man’s not contributing so it’s not his home. Why?

Show quote history

That’s a fair point, and I can see how it might have come across that way. My main concern has always been about the stability and security of the children, but the issue of the man not contributing financially or having legal standing in the home is part of that. If he’s not contributing or doesn’t have any rights to the property, it makes the living situation inherently insecure for him and, by extension, for his children when they stay there.

It’s not about punishing him for not paying, but about recognising that without contribution or legal rights, he and his children have no real security in the home. That’s why I think parents should be cautious about these arrangements. It’s about protecting the kids from the risk of suddenly losing what they thought was a safe place if the relationship ends.

OP posts:

wordler · 05/07/2025 20:54

Okay now I get it - you asked the wrong question. Everyone else was responding assuming that most of the two adults in your scenario have had those talks before moving in. So all the people saying yes it's the step kids home are saying that because we assume the Dad and his girlfriend have had the conversation and are both on the same page about it.

What you should have asked is not:

Why do so many people say it is the SC's home?

but

Why are so many people not being honest with themselves and each other about what security they can truly offer the children before they move in?

I assume you are speaking from real-life experience? Or are you basing this off posts on Mumsnet?

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:52

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:41

It’s not about intentionally making children feel like they can’t call it home or constantly reminding them it could be taken away. It’s about the adults being honest with themselves and each other about what security they can truly offer the children before they move in. Kids thrive on stability, and it’s the responsibility of the adults to create or avoid situations where that stability could be shattered unexpectedly.

Letting children believe a place is their home when the adults haven’t agreed on long-term plans can lead to deeper hurt if things fall apart. It’s kinder to set up clear, secure arrangements from the start so kids don’t have to experience losing what they thought was their home. That doesn’t mean telling them every day they might have to leave, but it does mean not moving them into a situation where that’s a real possibility without proper commitments in place.

Show quote history

I agree that parents should be careful about moving into insecure living arrangements to protect their children from being unsettled if it goes wrong. But that’s not how you started this thread or the point you’ve been arguing so emphatically. It was all about the man’s not contributing so it’s not his home. Why?

wordler · 05/07/2025 20:45

So this is either:

A) a specific real-world situation
B) a specific hypothetical situation
C) a general observation of various relationships you have witnessed (real life? MN?) You say in your OP: I keep seeing this scenario.

If it's

A) a specific real-world situation

Then the couple in question screwed up because they didn't discuss the logistics and expectations of the future of the relationship and what the potential of becoming a blended family meant.

B) a specific hypothetical situation

Then the couple in question screwed up because they didn't discuss the logistics and expectations of the future of the relationship and what the potential of becoming a blended family meant.

C) a general observation of various relationships you have witnessed

In which case why are you sure that the couple have not had the relevant discussions and are operating under the assumption that this is a forever relationship and the woman has invited the Dad and his kids to come and make a home with her? Yes, there's always the possibilty of a breakup and subsequen upset over a move but that's no different from that happening with two bio parents. Kids end up losing the home they are in and have to get used to settling in another one.

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:41

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:36

So do you think it’s better to make sure kids are always conscious that the place they stay with their dad is definitely not their home and can be taken from them at any time, or to let them view it as their home and deal with losing it as a home if and when the time comes? I’ve had periods of uncertainty regarding my own home and I just decided that home is where my family (DH and kids) are, the building is irrelevant.

For kids in the situations you describe, home is where their dad is. Suppose the kids live full time with their dad and they all move in to the new parters house. Should the view it as their home then? Or should the be made very aware that they can’t be at home there and it could be torn out from under them at any moment so they are technically homeless?

Show quote history

It’s not about intentionally making children feel like they can’t call it home or constantly reminding them it could be taken away. It’s about the adults being honest with themselves and each other about what security they can truly offer the children before they move in. Kids thrive on stability, and it’s the responsibility of the adults to create or avoid situations where that stability could be shattered unexpectedly.

Letting children believe a place is their home when the adults haven’t agreed on long-term plans can lead to deeper hurt if things fall apart. It’s kinder to set up clear, secure arrangements from the start so kids don’t have to experience losing what they thought was their home. That doesn’t mean telling them every day they might have to leave, but it does mean not moving them into a situation where that’s a real possibility without proper commitments in place.

OP posts:

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:36

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:27

Yes, it’s true that many people live in insecure housing situations, like adult children living with parents or tenants on short leases. But the key difference is that in those cases, there’s usually a clear understanding of rights and expectations, either through family agreements, rental contracts or legal protections. Even if their home is insecure, they know where they stand.

In a situation where a man moves into his partner’s home, there’s often no formal agreement at all. His right to stay depends entirely on the goodwill of the homeowner, with no legal or contractual standing. This creates a unique kind of insecurity, especially for his children who may be led to believe they have a stable home when they actually don’t.

Acknowledging this insecurity isn’t about semantics. It’s about protecting children from being blindsided if the relationship ends and they suddenly lose what they thought was their second home. Being honest about the difference between a secure and an insecure home helps everyone make informed decisions.

I agree that parents should think carefully before moving into someone else’s home with their children, but pretending the place is unquestionably the children’s home just because they sleep there ignores the real emotional and practical risks they face.

Show quote history

So do you think it’s better to make sure kids are always conscious that the place they stay with their dad is definitely not their home and can be taken from them at any time, or to let them view it as their home and deal with losing it as a home if and when the time comes? I’ve had periods of uncertainty regarding my own home and I just decided that home is where my family (DH and kids) are, the building is irrelevant.

For kids in the situations you describe, home is where their dad is. Suppose the kids live full time with their dad and they all move in to the new parters house. Should the view it as their home then? Or should the be made very aware that they can’t be at home there and it could be torn out from under them at any moment so they are technically homeless?