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?

No one is saying you should provide a home for your boyfriend’s children or have any responsibility to do so. Frankly given how you feel about it I think you should never ever live with a man with children.

But if you choose to move him into your house then that’s you choosing to provide his kids with a home for however long he’s living with you. And if you choose to do that then I think you bear some responsibility to think it’s going to be more than a “temporary home” before you involve kids in it - maybe not legally speaking, but morally as a decent person.

If they were my partner’s children I would.

No, not exactly. If a new partner invites the mother/father to move in with them and cohabit, the couple are essentially creating a home for themselves. So, by extension, the mother/father are providing a home - their home - for the child, irrespective of the ownership/tenancy/cohabiting situation.

People move home all the time. Wherever you live is your home.

No. That house will no longer be their home. Where he moves to will then be their home.

oh ok..... ha.......ha......ha.....ha

I wonder if this thread is created by a sc who is trying to ascertain if they have dibs on SM’s house - no you don’t unless she’s written you into her will. Apart from that you are entitled to call it your home. For practical reasons if nothing else.

op if you are writing about your own situation I wonder if you have shared your thoughts and attitude with your partner. What does he say about it?

He has provided them with a home.

The OPs home.

Where he lives.

It’s a common cock lodger move tbh.

Children don’t say that. They don’t really give a shit about Sarah and her house. Wherever their father lives is their home until he moves then that house becomes their home. Ideally their father doesn’t involve himself with and move in with a sequence of women who ask him to move out. That would mean he and therefore his children were in temporary accommodation. But why would a woman who moves a man who has children into her house object to it being referred to as their home?

Moving home all the time is different to living somewhere where you on not part of rental agreement or a homeowner and could be asked to leave any time.

What do children say then?

So it was just a temporary home?

It is said in the same way people who are going out together refer to a partners children as " step children".

They aren't step children until your married, and even then you have zero obligation to them unles you get up guardianship etc..

Women who end up allowing a partner to move in and use their house as a part time unpaid home for their children, are invariably soft and mugs.

Men target such women.
Men see it as a super cheap alternative to actually paying for a home for their children.
Go find a woman with a house and move in asap.

Well only if you own the house outright. If you have a mortgage and lose your job, you’d quickly find your accommodation had been as temporary as a rental.

Just don’t have a relationship with a man who has children.

Yes.

If the woman is not happy with that, she should not live with the Father.

As I asked previously, how long would you continue to refer to it as a "temporary home"? One month, one year, 10 years after the father had moved in with his partner? After, say 5 years, would you have a graduation ceremony? "Congratulations, you have been upgraded from a temporary to permanent resident".

OP, why don't you just outline the actual problem, instead of all these ridiculous linguistic gymnastics you're trotting out?

It really isn’t. Where you live is your home. Children are never part of any rental agreement ever, so by your logic that would mean children could never call anywhere home

So if parents rent their children haven't got a home as the landlord can ask them to leave?

So many homeless children, it's a national scandal we never knew about.

Oh gosh you're right, even more homeless children. We need to start a campaign about it, the majority of children must be homeless.

So someone who doesn’t own property can never move into with someone that does own property, unless they’re put on the deeds first? I mean technically that would be better but highly unlikely to happen before they’ve lived together.

All homes are technically temporary.

Yes

Yes

Come on OP what’s your personal interest in this scenario - are you the home owner, the homeless parent, the other resident parent, a former step child?

Surely all homes are temporary homes. Very few people die in the same home they were born in.