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?

I guess the children wouldn’t see it as their home. Just a house that their dad lives in.

What does it matter and why do you care so much OP?

Their home is wherever their dad is. If he moves home, they move home.

Happens a lot, not just in this scenario.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that for kids, feeling connected to a parent is a big part of feeling at home. But the physical and legal reality of where they live matters too. If their dad is living somewhere without any rights or security, then their sense of home is built on something that could fall apart quickly. That can be really destabilising for children if things don’t work out.

It’s one thing when a family moves together into a stable new home, but it’s different if the parent’s living situation depends entirely on someone else’s willingness to let them stay. Kids deserve more certainty than that. Their emotional connection to their dad is essential, but they also need a home that’s secure and reliable.

Has someone hacked your account OP? Why didn't you save everyone a lot of time and just posted coherent, sensible posts like that in the first place?

So basically @cardycard Ex husband is wanting to have his kids spend tine at the house he lives in with his partner and OP is being difficult and saying no and using the non argument that it’s “not his house” to justify keeping these children away from their dad.

Hmm I wonder if the OP is the mother in this scenario, her ex has moved in with his girlfriend, and she is not happy with her dc referring to gf's house as 'home' 🤷‍♀️

If you still have a mortgage, then technically, the lender owns part of your home, so it still isn't yours. I think your home is where you live the majority of the time. Whether you own or rent is neither here nor there.

When my two DC were younger, they would go to their DF's every other weekend. I would just tell people that they were at their dad's or had gone to their dad's for the weekend. None of us ever considered it to be their home. Probably because he was a bit of a slob, so it wouldn't have felt homely to them. They were primary school aged at the time.

That's subjective. What period of time do you consider to be temporary? Two weeks? Six months? Two years?

Actually, if you have an elderly married couple living in the same Council house they rented in the late 1950s/60s, the woman's name will not be on the rental agreement as only the man's went on it in those days. According to you, it's not her home then?

That’s a good example, but I think it highlights why context matters. In the case of an elderly married couple, they have a legal and social partnership that gives both of them rights and responsibilities in the home, even if only one name is on the tenancy. Marriage creates a shared legal and financial life, so the home belongs to both in practice and often in law.

That’s very different from someone moving into a partner’s home without marriage or any legal agreement. Without that formal commitment, there’s no shared legal foundation giving both people equal security in the home. So while the situations might look similar on the surface, the rights and stability created by marriage make them fundamentally different.

What’s your point though? Do you think people should stop calling it the kids’ home? Seems a bit harsh on the kids, as it could make them feel more rootless. It’s nice to have a home. As a kid, the legalities don’t matter much, it’s how things feel. Yes, things could go wrong and they could have to move out, but that’s true of almost any home to a greater or lesser extent. Life can be precarious but you can still enjoy it while it lasts.

Or so you think the man should have avoided moving in with the woman?

Or something else?

Easy solution, don't allow a partner who has children move into your home.

My point isn’t that kids should never call it their home or that anyone should tell them they can’t feel at home. It’s that the adults need to think carefully before creating a situation where kids could lose what they believe is their home if the relationship ends. Kids need stability, and it’s up to the adults to make sure they’re not setting them up for unnecessary upheaval.

I don’t think it’s wrong for the man to move in with the woman if they’re both committed to giving the children a real sense of security. But if the relationship isn’t stable or there’s no plan for a long-term future, it might be better to wait before blending households so the children don’t get attached to a home they might lose.

It’s not about denying children the feeling of home but about adults being honest and responsible so that “home” truly means safety and stability, not something that can disappear overnight.

Agreed. My posts were expressed quite poorly.

@cardycard I suggest you let go of all the bitterness you’re holding on to this situation.

You can’t control who your ex is in a relationship with and if you continue to want to die on the hill of the tiny detail of where your ex lives and where your children are spending time with him you’re going to cause irreversible damage to the relationship you have with your children.

It doesn’t matter if your ex is living with Ronald McDonald and the kids are calling that place their second home. Focus on making your time when your children are with you happy and positive and let your ex focus on his relationship with his kids when he has them.

But as an example of the case I mentioned, husband dies and wife is then given the tenancy as it can be passed down once. Wife then dies, but DD still living at home isn't allowed to take on the tenancy as it's already been passed down once. If husband and wife had both been on the original tenancy, DD would have legally been allowed to then have the tenancy. So from a legal point of view it made a huge difference!

Going back to your original point, my DC would stay with their DF EOW, but they never considered it to be their home. Their home was with me. Their friends were here and they went to school here. However, DF had his own Council property (was originally in a privately rented bedsit when he left the marital home), so there were no other adults involved. When he lived in the bedsit, he just used to take them out for the day every Sunday. It never would have occurred to me to have a DP move in when he had his DC EOW, not least because there wouldn't have been room! Plus, it wouldn't have been fair on my own DC.

I agree with all that.

Good advice but not relevant to me in the slightest. Might be helpful to someone who is bitter.

It’s still a tenancy, so not theirs. If only one name is on the tenancy, should they split up, one has more rights than the other. ‘In a sole tenancy, only one person is legally responsible for the tenancy and all associated obligations. In a joint tenancy, multiple people share the responsibilities and rights of the tenancy. ‘

That’s exactly the point: if there’s only one name on the tenancy, the person not on it has no legal right to stay if the relationship ends, even if they’ve been living there and treating it like home. That legal imbalance means their ability to call it a secure home depends entirely on the relationship continuing.

This is why it’s important for adults to think carefully before moving into or bringing children into a living situation where one partner has no legal rights. Otherwise, everyone involved, especially the children, can end up vulnerable if things go wrong. Having both partners on the tenancy or some other agreement can help create real security, but without it, the home isn’t truly shared or stable.

‘That’s very different from someone moving into a partner’s home without marriage or any legal agreement. Without that formal commitment, there’s no shared legal foundation giving both people equal security in the home. So while the situations might look similar on the surface, the rights and stability created by marriage make them fundamentally different.‘

Someone is not going to just move in.
That’s phrased to suggest the person already living there bears no responsibility or say in whether they move in or not. The house resident must have extended an invitation to the other to move in with or without formal or legal agreement.

To invite someone to live in without first discussing dependents is plain daft

But you said being married gave them both the same equal rights. Wrong.

If only one name is on the tenancy, then they do not .
You can’t even keep your own ideas straight.

Home is someone's main residence I.e the place they sleep at the most.

The child's "Home" can be owned by the child's parents, or a landlord.

Calling a place your home and living there does NOT give you rights to the property.. The only person who has that is the owner.

Maybe avoid living together as a blended family if you want to avoid 'Home' confusion.

Because it is their home aswell. When my boys are with their dad I always say let me know when you get home meaning their dad's house and when they are with me I'll say do you know when you are coming home.