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

Its their home i.e. as in a place they live. They don't own the place.

Let me guess, you’re the mother of these children and you’re trying to stop your Ex from having the children at his new home that he lives in with his new partner (the home owner)
and you’re using the argument that it isn’t a home provided by him so they can’t stay there?

Surely the fathers home is also the DC's home even though they don't stay full time. By your logic, the DM's home isn't their home neither as they are not there full time either. Where is their home???

Interesting question. Take the kids out of the equation. Do you see the same place as the man’s home?

Yes. Simple as that. Father’s home = his child’s home. Don’t like it, don’t live with the man.

the father’s home is always the child’s home.

a man who moves his children into a precarious living situation isn’t a very good father. The woman choosing to live with him should really think about her choice in boyfriend. Why does she want to be with a man that thinks it is ok to move into housing that he and his children could be kicked out of with no warning?

if it is time for cohabitation, it should be done as equals.

Apparently so! 😅

There's a lot of people needing to take up a hobby on this site eh 😂

I wonder if OP is enjoying keeping us all guessing, as to what her situation is?

I used to have a grandad who did this sort of thing all the time. Used to drive my dad bonkers !! 😂

'My house' = "I own or rent it'.
'My home' = 'I live there'.

The financial details are for the couple to decide. If the house owner can't accept the SC they shouldn't have the parent living there.

No one is saying that that’s not more stable though.

This is exactly it.

Why do you want it so badly not to be considered the children's home too when they are staying with their Dad?

If you care enough about this man to let him live with you then his kids come part of the package. Yes you could kick him out whenever you wanted as he has no legal claim to the property, but if you are in a happy relationship and want him to live with you then kids come as part of that. Yes it should be considered their "home" too when they are there, anywhere their dad is living is also their home. However temporary.

Presumably she invited him to live there which makes it his home. She can ask him to leave then it is no longer his home. Who pays for what is something they need to sort out between them.

It’s not about ‘providing them’ a home which sounds really value based. It’s simply that their dads home is theirs too. No child should ever feel like a guest in their dads home

I think the main difference in this scenario is that it’s a romantic partner moving in to make a home with the person who owns the house. The intention is usually permanent for most people. It becomes the Dad’s home, therefore it becomes the children’s home.

If the intention was temporary then I could see thinking of it as just staying at Dad’s girlfriend’s house.

So if Dad is just moving in for six months while he’s getting building work done on his own house then Dad and kids are ‘staying’ with girlfriend but their home is Dad’s house.

It would be like temporarily staying with your aunt for a few months while you were between houses - you might make yourself at home but you wouldn’t think if it as your home, you’d think of it as your aunt’s home that she was nice enough to let you use.

However if the two adults have decided to move in together and create a home together then when kids come they are living there too. When you decide to live with a person with children you are part of a family home.

I understand that.
I disagree that someone living with their GF in her house and seeing their DC two or three nights a fortnight is providing them with a home.

Your conflating the morality of should the father pay bills with the fact that he lives there, and therefore it is his home

Should a woman who owns her own home move in a man with DC who doesn't pay pills or rent? No absolutely not. But that doesn't change the fact that the cocklodger does live there, and therfore it is his and by extension his children's home

But by your definition no-one with kids would ever move in with anyone! When in fact it’s a completely normal and common thing to do.

The difference is, usually the person who owns the home isn’t holding that ownership over the head of their partner or threatening them with how they’re only there “temporarily”…

Does this also mean it's not the man's home and he should always have it in the back of his mind that he must not get comfortable, lest he be thrown out?

She’s not said they don’t have another home - they clearly live with their mum. Their dad has moved in with another woman and that’s now his home. He doesn’t need to step up and get somewhere else as he’s moved in with his partner. He has a home - and when his kids are over that is also their home

You seem to be equating the word home with owning the property you live in @cardycard , when they're not equivalent at all.

I rented for years, that house was my home, despite me not owning it.

My daughter is 18, she has now ownership in the house we live in. I could kick her out at any time if I wanted to. (Obviously I'm not actually going to). So its her home.

I spent 3 months on a cattle ranch in Australia. I didn't own any of it, but for those three months, the little room where I could lie in bed with a beer at the end of a day felt very much like home.

I'm off on holiday this week, at some point I'm sure I'll say to DP "Shall we have one more beer or head home? I'm not talking about going back to our house, but the hotel, but somehow she'll understand exactly what I mean"

Home is a very malleable concept, its not a tangible thing For most adults, home is the place they regularly go to sleep. It's where they can leave their stuff, and have a reasonable expectation it's not going to get nicked. Homes can be permanent, they can be temporary. The hotel next week will feel a bit like home, but less like home than our house.

For kids, most of the time "home" is a much simpler concept. Home is your parents.

My Mum died when I was 38. I never lived in the last house she owned, yet it was always "home". I owned my own home, but her house was also home. Right up until the moment she died. At that point, it stopped being home, just became a house that, ironically, I now owned.

You've strawmanned though.

The question isn't 'can the father say he is providing a home', the question is 'why is/ should it be called the children's home'. It is also irrelevant whether they have another home or not.

Whether it is paid for by the father or not, or whether they have another home or not, the house they share with their father when they stay with him is called their home.

If it's so temporary and may be stopped at any moment, why are two responsible adults engaging in it and dragging children into the situation?

Children should only be introduced to a partner if the parent and the partner have the reasonable expectation of being together long term. If that's not the case, you shouldn't be letting a parent move in with you and he shouldn't be considering it.

The question has been answered. If the father lives there, it's the children's home. Your options are:

1. Have a father live in your home and accept that his children now view it as their home too
2. Literally anything other than that- date someone without kids, date him but don't move in together, whatever you want.

This thread is bonkers.
I agree with the OP, and I am not sure why her position is so contentious.
In the scenario described, this is not a stable or secure home for the DC, so I hope they would actually have another, proper home. Acknowledging this is not saying the DC are not welcome EOW but simply that dad cannot say he is providing a home for his DC in this scenario. The DC are staying with him EOW whilst he is living with his GF. It would be pushing it to say this is DC’s home.
The GF has no obligation to house the DC, and dad should really step up and get his own place.