Page 15 | 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?

NoisyGoldMember · 05/07/2025 17:45

Who is saying it’s the SC home? If the dad isn’t paying bills it isn’t his home.

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 18:14

DearDenimEagle · 05/07/2025 17:41

You called them SC ; I didn’t.

Kids will call it home if they sleep there. It’s a turn of phrase. It doesn’t give them legal rights, it is just a term rather than saying, longwindedly, I’m going back to my father’s girlfriend’s house. Semantics. Stop getting your knickers in a twist about a word people use to describe where they’re sleeping. If you’re so upset about the word, maybe you should not ever be in a relationship with a father…in fact, you should never have started this relationship at all. Does the father get to call it home, I wonder?

Everyone acknowledges, children of a partner have no legal rights to a house, but calling it home when they sleep there should not be offensive to the homeowner. Theyre children. If you hate them so much, and you resent them so much then dump the father and have your house and home to yourself.
I’ve read all your posts and I gather you are only interested in posts which validate your hatred of these children.

Show quote history

I don’t think it’s about hating the kids at all. It’s just a fact that until there’s a committed agreement like marriage or a shared household, it isn’t really the children’s home. Yes, kids might casually call it home when they sleep there, but that doesn’t make it their home in the sense of having security, permanence or a place where they truly belong.

The difference matters because it affects their sense of stability. If things go wrong in the relationship, they could lose what they thought was a home overnight. That’s why it’s important for adults to be clear about what the arrangement is and what the children can expect so they aren’t misled into thinking they have a home where they don’t.

OP posts:

wordler · 05/07/2025 18:17

cardycard · 05/07/2025 18:14

I don’t think it’s about hating the kids at all. It’s just a fact that until there’s a committed agreement like marriage or a shared household, it isn’t really the children’s home. Yes, kids might casually call it home when they sleep there, but that doesn’t make it their home in the sense of having security, permanence or a place where they truly belong.

The difference matters because it affects their sense of stability. If things go wrong in the relationship, they could lose what they thought was a home overnight. That’s why it’s important for adults to be clear about what the arrangement is and what the children can expect so they aren’t misled into thinking they have a home where they don’t.

Show quote history

Is it the Dad’s home?

Or is he a temporary guest?

DearDenimEagle · 05/07/2025 19:16

cardycard · 05/07/2025 18:14

I don’t think it’s about hating the kids at all. It’s just a fact that until there’s a committed agreement like marriage or a shared household, it isn’t really the children’s home. Yes, kids might casually call it home when they sleep there, but that doesn’t make it their home in the sense of having security, permanence or a place where they truly belong.

The difference matters because it affects their sense of stability. If things go wrong in the relationship, they could lose what they thought was a home overnight. That’s why it’s important for adults to be clear about what the arrangement is and what the children can expect so they aren’t misled into thinking they have a home where they don’t.

Show quote history

“That’s why it’s important for adults to be clear about what the arrangement is and what the children can expect so they aren’t misled into thinking they have a home where they don’t” ...I’ve already said that up there ^.

So if the adults do that, then there’s no point to the thread.

Doitrightnow · 05/07/2025 19:32

My parents divorced. My Dad had a room for me but I literally never stayed there (he only moved just down the road) and certainly never viewed it as my home.

I doubt my EOW SC would say our house is home either, although again we have a room for them.

But I do think it's an obligation to fathers to ensure they have a safe and welcoming place for their kids.

itsgettingweird · 05/07/2025 19:39

It’s the father’s home. It’s the children’s home.

It may be the woman’s house.

But if you live somewhere it’s home.

I’ve lived in my home for 17 years.

it’s not my house though as I rent it from the HA.

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 19:44

itsgettingweird · 05/07/2025 19:39

It’s the father’s home. It’s the children’s home.

It may be the woman’s house.

But if you live somewhere it’s home.

I’ve lived in my home for 17 years.

it’s not my house though as I rent it from the HA.

I see what you mean, but I don’t think it’s the same situation. If you rent from a housing association, you have a legal right to live there, which gives you security and makes it your home in a real sense.

In this case, the father has no ownership or tenancy rights. He’s staying in his partner’s house by her choice, and the children are visiting when he’s there. That’s very different from having a rental agreement or ownership because if the relationship ends or she asks him to leave, neither he nor the children have any right to stay.

That uncertainty makes it more like a temporary arrangement than a true home for the children.

OP posts:

Notafanofheat · 05/07/2025 19:52

Since my son was born we moved 3 times all but current renting. The last house to my son and us was home as we lived there for 5yrs. We bought this one but won’t live here this long as we’ll need to move…however this is still home and to my daughter the only home she knows…I do very much ascribe to the saying that home is where your heart is - it has nothing to do with property ownership and all to do with people and feeling.
In your case, I’d say that if the relationship was long lasting, the children felt welcome in the partner’s house and “at home” so to say - it was their home. If they felt like they’re always an intrusion then it was not their home. Is the issue centring on you breaking up with your partner and him telling you: “how can you take away the children’s home?” In such case it’s ridiculous emotional blackmail and them feeling it’s their home doesn’t put any responsibility on you to stay in the relationship or keep providing for the children. My son misses our last house, I acknowledge his feelings, but it does not mean we shouldn’t have moved…

wordler · 05/07/2025 19:55

cardycard · 05/07/2025 19:44

I see what you mean, but I don’t think it’s the same situation. If you rent from a housing association, you have a legal right to live there, which gives you security and makes it your home in a real sense.

In this case, the father has no ownership or tenancy rights. He’s staying in his partner’s house by her choice, and the children are visiting when he’s there. That’s very different from having a rental agreement or ownership because if the relationship ends or she asks him to leave, neither he nor the children have any right to stay.

That uncertainty makes it more like a temporary arrangement than a true home for the children.

Show quote history

Is it considered the Dad's home while he is living there?

Or is it a temporary arrangement that he knows is a temporary arrangement?

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:13

Well after a bit of googling, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a home as a domicile / place of residence. Having looked at quite a few different definitions from different websites, it is all about the place where a person resides, some even describe it as a permanent or temporary place of residence. No reference whatsoever to ownership or legal right to live there.

Going with what was an uncontested definition of home from my quick search, if a man moves into a woman’s house that she owns/rents in her own name, the fact that he resides there makes it his home, by dictionary definition. As to any children he has, I’d say it depends if they spend enough time there to be regarded as living there. They should view it as their Dad’s home because it is, and I’d hope that they would feel able to be at home there even if it is not their main residence.

So yes, you can argue that if they mainly reside somewhere else, and their recorded address for things like doctors and schools is somewhere else, then no it’s not their home. However, it is their dads home, and they should be able to treat their dads home as their own. Frankly this whole thread is just an excuse to make kids feel unwelcome and unwanted.

If you are a woman who owns or rents a house on your own, do not have a man who has kids move in with you unless you are prepared to welcome them into your home as their home.

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:16

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:13

Well after a bit of googling, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a home as a domicile / place of residence. Having looked at quite a few different definitions from different websites, it is all about the place where a person resides, some even describe it as a permanent or temporary place of residence. No reference whatsoever to ownership or legal right to live there.

Going with what was an uncontested definition of home from my quick search, if a man moves into a woman’s house that she owns/rents in her own name, the fact that he resides there makes it his home, by dictionary definition. As to any children he has, I’d say it depends if they spend enough time there to be regarded as living there. They should view it as their Dad’s home because it is, and I’d hope that they would feel able to be at home there even if it is not their main residence.

So yes, you can argue that if they mainly reside somewhere else, and their recorded address for things like doctors and schools is somewhere else, then no it’s not their home. However, it is their dads home, and they should be able to treat their dads home as their own. Frankly this whole thread is just an excuse to make kids feel unwelcome and unwanted.

If you are a woman who owns or rents a house on your own, do not have a man who has kids move in with you unless you are prepared to welcome them into your home as their home.

While dictionary definitions describe “home” broadly as a place of residence, real-life context matters far more than abstract definitions. Legally and practically, there’s a difference between a place you have the right to call home through ownership, tenancy, or other security and a place where you’re staying only because someone else allows it.

If a man moves into a woman’s house that she alone owns or rents, his ability to stay hinges entirely on her continuing agreement. That lack of security makes it fundamentally different from a true home, which should offer stability and certainty. Calling it his home just because he resides there overlooks the power imbalance and the reality that he can be told to leave at any time.

For children, it’s even more important. Kids need consistency and a sense of safety. If they spend limited time there and their main residence, school address, and social life are elsewhere, the woman’s house is not truly their home. It’s a place they visit. Suggesting it’s cruel or unwelcoming to acknowledge this reality ignores the very real risks of giving children false security in a place they could lose overnight if the adults’ relationship breaks down.

Wanting clarity doesn’t mean wanting to make kids feel unwelcome. It means being honest and responsible so they aren’t misled.

OP posts:

Pinkfluffypencilcase · 05/07/2025 20:20

Op are you the mum or step mum in this scenario?

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:25

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:16

While dictionary definitions describe “home” broadly as a place of residence, real-life context matters far more than abstract definitions. Legally and practically, there’s a difference between a place you have the right to call home through ownership, tenancy, or other security and a place where you’re staying only because someone else allows it.

If a man moves into a woman’s house that she alone owns or rents, his ability to stay hinges entirely on her continuing agreement. That lack of security makes it fundamentally different from a true home, which should offer stability and certainty. Calling it his home just because he resides there overlooks the power imbalance and the reality that he can be told to leave at any time.

For children, it’s even more important. Kids need consistency and a sense of safety. If they spend limited time there and their main residence, school address, and social life are elsewhere, the woman’s house is not truly their home. It’s a place they visit. Suggesting it’s cruel or unwelcoming to acknowledge this reality ignores the very real risks of giving children false security in a place they could lose overnight if the adults’ relationship breaks down.

Wanting clarity doesn’t mean wanting to make kids feel unwelcome. It means being honest and responsible so they aren’t misled.

Show quote history

A lot of people live in homes they can be told to leave at any time. Adult children living with parents for example. Plenty of people have insecure homes. Doesn’t make them not their homes, just makes them insecure homes. If you go through all your posts and change every single instance where you used the word “home” to “secure home” you will indeed have a point. Personally I think that man or women with existing children should be wary of putting themselves in a vulnerable position like this.

Original poster

cardycard · 05/07/2025 20:27

ThreePointOneFourOneFiveNine · 05/07/2025 20:25

A lot of people live in homes they can be told to leave at any time. Adult children living with parents for example. Plenty of people have insecure homes. Doesn’t make them not their homes, just makes them insecure homes. If you go through all your posts and change every single instance where you used the word “home” to “secure home” you will indeed have a point. Personally I think that man or women with existing children should be wary of putting themselves in a vulnerable position like this.

Show quote history

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.

OP posts:

wordler · 05/07/2025 20:33

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

Does the Dad consider it his home?
Does the partner consider it the Dad's home?

Or have the couple come to a temporary living arrangement that the Dad knows is temporary.

Or have they decided to move in together and share a life together?

I've asked you this question several times now, why can't you answer it?

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?

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:

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.

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 20:54

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?

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 20:57

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?

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.

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 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