To say we cant take his child full time?

YANBU.
I get it.
We have my partners kids every second weekend and one of them week on week off. He would eventually like them all to be week on week off but I have put my foot down at that. It would be chaotic and he wouldn't cope it would all land on me.
I have my own kids and work full time it's hard enough with one of them here that much. I do everything for everyone and I don't think it's my responsibility to be single handedly cleaning up after them too. Not to mention we are overcrowded when they're here as it is.

So I have highlighted the pros and cons and explained why that is never going to work and he has not brought it up again.
It would have been different if we has started out that way when we moved in together but we didn't so it's hard to change that now.

You and your DP should get better paid jobs to ensure that you can adequately house the 6 children you’ve both chosen to have. (FYI…most families in the UK cannot afford 6 children.)

This is nonsense.

Where on earth did you get this information from?

He should move out and get a three bed.

He should take your shared three and his son with him.

This way you'll all have adequate space and you can't complain about having too many children.

The child always comes first. Always.

Good grief. I can only assume that you were hoping to make the pages of the daily fail or that you’re Mormons or something. Having that many kids when neither of you have space or own your own home is completely mad.

Nonetheless, I think you have to let his DS live with his dad if that’s what he wants. Do you have a dining room downstairs you could use as a bedroom for you and DH? What about building a cabin of some sort in the garden- would that be allowed?

A 14 year old can absolutely decide he prefers to live with his dad. And a court would accept that. What about his mum?? She’d become his non resident parent, like his dad was previously. His mum is only one of his parents.

I suggests nothing of the sort. CT discount has nothing to do with names on tenancies, as I said before. No one from the CT benefit section of her local council will have access to her agreement and will not demand a copy of it. Oh and FYI many women on here have been advised over the years NOT to add a new partners name to a tenancy in case the relationship breaks down and they lose their and their kids home. This is perfectly legal and does not invalidate the agreement.

So. What are you going to make up now to fit your bigoted prejudiced narrative?

I really cannot wait for your next Ep to drop.....its rather like fanfic!

Try posting on the parenting board I think they’re a bit more helpful. I’d not like anyone talking about my child in the way you have although I wouldn’t want my child full time at their dads. Again, try parenting board you may get more answers.

Again, you can declare someone living there without putting them on the tenancy.

You're making yourself look daft here.

They do have single occupancy tenancy agreements.

I don't think you are unreasonable for questioning how it would work practically. The replies you are getting are a bit baffling not to get that it's about space.
Hopefully you can work something out.

She would have signed a single occupancy tenancy agreement when she got the council house prior to meeting her current partner and having kids with him. She would have been entitled to 25% council tax reduction via a claim form. In the tenancy agreement there will be a clause about declaring if the single occupancy ends. To retain just her name on the tenancy agreement strongly suggests that there’s a reason why she wants to continue to appear a single parent.
i am in favour of welfare spending when it’s for the right reasons but I cannot stand

We don't know any such thing - she hasn't said. Why would she "have to"? We have no idea what her income is.

What we do know is that her place isn't HA, it's council.

She would have signed a single occupancy tenancy agreement when she got the council house prior to meeting her current partner and having kids with him. She would have been entitled to 25% council tax reduction via a claim form which she signs to declare she’s telling the truth. In the tenancy agreement there will be a clause about declaring if the single occupancy ends. To retain just her name on the tenancy agreement strongly suggests that there’s a reason why she wants to continue to appear a single parent.
i am in favour of welfare spending when it’s for the right reasons but I cannot stand it when people play the system like this because it takes funds from those who have a genuine need.

how do you know she hasn’t declared her partner?

Tenancy agreements, older, newer or in various London boroughs, do not have a clause “to this effect”

she has said no to her husbands child moving in - that is something wrong

This poor lady came here for help, not hammering.
She has done nothing wrong.
This isn’t a step mam problem or even a step son problem.
its a housing problem.
look at the numbers and imagine livylike that, then adding one more into the mix, when it’s not necessary.
OP. you need to consALL the children, not just one. They all have EQUAL priority.
Also, reading better lines, sounds as though there is a LOT of wife work there already.
Take care

Maybe one of your children should move out to make room for his child? Would that be acceptable to you? If not then how can you say his child can't live with you all?
He sounds feckless tbh to have all these children that he can't afford to adequately house. Poor kids.

I would put a big fold out sofa bed in the living room and you and DP sleep there,
and arrange all 6 children into the three bedrooms.
Until you sort something else.

Just sit him down and explain that you are with his father now so it’s tough shit.

Then your DP can presumably get your kids to leave as well.

Children don't choose who they live with. Their parents make a decision based on what is best. No 14 year old should be allowed to just move into a house because he wants to. What about his mum?

Are you drinking? You're assuming some wild shit here dude. Take a breath FFS.

This!
You are saying a man’s children aren’t as important as a woman’s children. When they are ALL existing children in your lives. They should always be welcome at either house. I can’t believe you’d say no. I can understand you may be concerned about how you’re all going to make it work, but you must.
Imagine how awful that child would feel if his father said he couldn’t live with him because his partner’s children were the priority…

Yeah, because these two 'on-off' geniuses with 6 kids between them, who cannot even house them adequately, but continue having more, they DEFINITELY earn enough to support 8 people (6 kids and 2 adults) without being heavily subbed by a taxpayer. For sure.

Come on now. Council house. 3 kids from 'previous relationships', 3 further ones. Crystal clear what kind of people we're talking about here.