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

[cardycard]

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?

You specifically said it’s about paying.

my sister lived with me for a while, paid no bills and not named. It was absolutely her home while she lived with me.

😂

Would you say the same if a woman moved into a man’s home?

I don’t get this line of thought at all, which ever way around it is. People often move into a home already owned by their partner. Couples don’t always buy a new house specially so they can live together, if one of them already has a house that is suitable.

It was her temporary home then.

Out of curiosity OP, how should the man refer to the house? For example - If Dave moves in with Mary, and it’s Mary’s house, Dave has no legal claim to the house. After a few years he’s still there, but still not on the deeds or the mortgage. When he’s at work, and it’s the end of the day, should he say “I’m going home now” or “I’m going back to Mary’s house”?

After what arbitrary period of time would you stop referring to it as a "temporary home" OP? One year, five years, 10 years? Surely everyone starts to cohabit assuming it will be a permanent arrangement.

You are truly bizarre.

why does it even matter? Who are you in this scenario and what’s your actual issue ?

My personal belief is that it is entirely up to the parents to provide a stable and secure home for their children. So in this strange thread, I would agree that although it is deemed the children are at “home” with their father EOW, the father is not the one providing the “home”, it is in fact his partner. If things were to come to an end then there is no security for him or his children which is why I think it is important for the parents to provide that stability and not palm it off on a new partner.

Yes, but if it was never intended to be a permanent arrangement (e.g. my sister is staying with me for 6 months whilst looking for a flat) then I think referring to it as a temporary home is fine. But this is completely different to the situation you are describing! Assuming the father intended his relationship to last

Because it is their home. Their dad’s home is also their home. Just because they spend more time at their mums house both places are their home

You can refer to any home as a temporary home. Many marriages split up forcing children to leave their home.

why are you asking?

OP I don’t get what point you’re trying to make? In what scenario are you expecting the kids to tell people that the house is their “temporary” home?

it’s the same for anyone in a relationship who has moved in with someone who already owns a property. My husband lived in a house owned solely by me from a year into our relationship until a year after we were married when we eventually bought our own house together. When people asked him where he lived, would you expect him to say “in a temporary home, owned by Travel”? Or, like a normal person, just say “in a house in Brighton” and not mention whose name was on the deeds?!

I just genuinely don’t understand your nitpicking here? No kid owns a home and parents can be thrown out of rented accommodation if landlord sells up or if they don’t pay rent, parents can also be thrown out of mortgaged property if they stop paying the mortgage. So are only people who own house outright in real homes?

You keep saying it’s just words but the kids calling it home is also just words. Is it really that much of a big deal that the kids calling her house home?
The dad needs to rethink his priorities if this is how his girlfriend thinks. Who moves a man in thinking it’s only temporary? Also who would turn to their SC and say sorry you’re just a visitor?

Providing a home for DC is for most people an economic commitment, to be fair. So on an economic level, the GF is providing the home in the OP’s case. The couple are not married and the dad is not a stay at home parent to other DC, which I think would equal an economic commitment (so unpaid labour benefitting the household).

Whether DC are welcome or not in the GF’s house is an emotional question, which seems to be tied up for most posters on this thread with the ability to call said house home. As long as the dad lives with the GF it is his home, I don’t think anyone is disputing that. And no-one is saying DC are unwelcome. However, as other posters have also noted, this is not a stable or secure home (they are not married and he has no legal right to the house). It is not his house so whatever home he creates there is dependent on his GF’s consent to the relationship. Whether you agree with the OP’s depiction of the home as temporary or not, surely we can agree that dad has no claim to permanence in this scenario.

The OP has, as I recall, conceded that this is the DC’s home, at least temporarily. However, I would question whether DC actually do have two homes in this scenario, temporary or otherwise, or one home and one place they stay every other weekend. For all practical and legal purposes (presuming the mother has residency), their home is with their mother, their home address for school, doctor, dentist etc will also be with their mother. With the economic costs that entails.

I would say it is values based, rather than value based. Values in so far as providing a home is about more than making DC feel welcome but about providing security and permanency to the best of one’s ability.

It sounds like the relationship is temporary tbh.

But yes, dad and kids come as a package, if you house the dad, by extension you’ve housed the kids.

Whatever pit he lays his head on is their home.

Not that it’s your responsibility to house a grown man or his kids, they won’t lose their home when he leaves. It’ll be wherever he lives next.

Because their parent is living there. It’s the father/mother’s home too if they move into a house with someone. If I move in with my partner it’s my home. I would help with the bills but that’s by the by, it’s up to the homeowner/person on the rental agreement to decide how the person they are sharing their home with contribute to the bills, before they move into.

Children deserve to feel safe and secure so yes it is their home - they don’t need to be concerned with mortgages and bills or if it’s temporary or permanent. It’s their home.

Now the situation between their father and the woman is another matter and should be dealt with by them as adults.

Two separate issues here op and you’re going down a rabbit hole that is nonsensical

Surely no one would ever deny young people the right to a home? I come across so much mean mindedness on MN. It is shocking

Yes and it is the birth or adoptive parents responsibility to provide that home. Not the latest new partner of one of the birth parents.

someones name is on the deeds. It’s that person’s house. And home if they live in it.
Anyone else who moves in with their stuff and stays can call it home, just as a tenant doesn’t own the house they pay rent on but still calls it home while they live there.
An arrangement where those who do not own the home have to leave and find a new home is usually in place, be it the end of a tenancy or the breakdown of a relationship. Children cannot own houses so their home is with their parent, who should be responsible about their expectations before taking them somewhere they are not welcome and from where they can expect to be kicked out.

If a person does not want the children around, don’t get involved with a parent, whose first duty is to their children . It is unreasonable to expect to keep a parent from their children.

I own a house but my home is currently my son’s house, while he works away. At some stage, I will move back to my own house. Then that will be home again and my son’s will be where I visit but not my home.

Exactly.

Are you opening up your home to young people?

But the responsibility and apportionment of it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question the OP asked? Do you read well?

@Notreallyme27

Stepparenting done the right way

They were lucky to have you.

When people live somewhere and they are not actively planning on leaving, then that is their home. If you rent, you still say “I’m going home,” at the end of the day, and you wouldn’t expect some weirdo you work with to insist on saying, “Well, technically it’s your landlord’s home, he could kick you out anytime making that effectively only your temporary home.” Because that would be both weird, and incorrect - it’s your landlord’s house; it’s your home. Your landlord lives in his own home (which he may or may not own). I don’t know why you’re insisting on not understanding the distinction between property ownership and “living in your home”. It’s not something the others posters seem to be struggling with…

Any married couple who jointly own a house would call it their home even though their relationship could breakdown and force them both to have to move out and sell it in order to recoup their investment. That doesn’t mean they should see it as a temporary home or a temporary arrangement. And it certainly wouldn’t mean it isn’t their kids home while they all live there.