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 understand your point, and you’re right that if only one person’s name is on the tenancy, they hold the legal rights to the property. What I meant was that in a marriage, there are often additional legal protections and rights that don’t exist for unmarried partners, even if the tenancy itself is in one name. For example, married spouses may have certain rights to remain in the home or make claims in the event of separation, which unmarried partners typically do not.

That doesn’t mean marriage automatically gives both people identical rights on a tenancy agreement, but it does usually offer more legal security and recognition of shared life compared to an unmarried relationship. I agree it’s important to be clear about these distinctions so everyone understands the legal realities of their situation.

I completely agree that no one just moves in without the homeowner or tenant inviting them, and the person already living there absolutely bears responsibility for deciding who they allow into their home. That’s exactly why it’s so important for both adults to have thorough, honest discussions before anyone moves in especially when there are children involved.

It’s not just about whether the new partner feels welcome, but also about making sure everyone, including the kids, understands what to expect and what level of security they will have. Rushing into living together without talking about dependents, parenting arrangements, or the long-term plan can create confusion and instability that ultimately hurts the children most.

OP - which party are you in the scenario? The home owner, the parent with kids moving in, the other parent, a former step kid who was blindsided by losing their home?

Was just thinking the same.

My immediate thoughts were not who owns this, whose right is that, it was purely - those poor kids.

Having been that child and my husband experiencing exactly the same, we have both said that should we split up, we would never co-habit with another person until our children are grown up and living elsewhere. And categorically would never want to have further children with a new partner.

It's always the kids that suffer at the hands of their selfish bloody parents. Always.

I understand where you’re coming from, and it’s admirable to want to protect your children above all else. But I think it’s also important to remember that life can be unpredictable, and it’s hard to make absolute decisions about what we’ll do in the future.

Circumstances, feelings, and family needs can all change over time, even within the same family.

What matters most is staying focused on what’s best for the kids in whatever situation comes up, and making thoughtful, caring choices along the way.

@cardycard

“What matters most is staying focused on what's best for the kids in whatever situation comes up, and making thoughtful, caring choices along the way.”

If that was really how you felt you wouldn’t be so hung up on the non detail of what is officially someone’s home and isn’t. People are what makes a home not tenancy agreements. Wherever they can be with their Dad is home.

If your name is not on the tenancy agreement and you are not married or in a civil partnership with the tenant, you generally do not have an automatic right to stay in the property if the tenant asks you to leave. However, you may be able to apply to the court for an occupation order, which could allow you to stay for a limited time (usually 6 to 12 months) particularly if you have children.

Isn't this argument entirely with AI?

This is such a strange thread. What is your actual question Op? Because countless posters have explained that a child’s home is where their parent is living (irrespective of who owns the actual physical property). But you don’t agree and just keep arguing!

The house their father lives at is their home. If he left (voluntarily or being asked to leave) then wherever he is going to live thereafter will become their home. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the children would lose the home and therefore shouldn't call it their home in the first place. But they don't lose their home when the dad moves out. They just no longer call that house their home and a different abode will be their home when visiting dad.
I admittedly don't fully understand your scenario though, because if the house owner and the dad are in a relationship and these children are part of the family set up then surely the breakdown of the relationship is much more than just the loss of address, unless the homeowner never wants to be close to these children due to how easily these ties could be severed.

If a dad lets his kid feel like they are visiting and that his home is not their home then he is a bad parent.

i cant quite figure out why you are tying yourself in knots to say that children don’t have a home with dad in particular circumstances.

the reality is that good parents don’t move their children into housing with relationships that aren’t settled and housing that isn’t shared equally. They don’t put their children into a position like you are describing in the first place. A woman who hosts a man that would do this should be rethinking her relationship choices.

Yes, feels like OP has had a personality transplant and is no making sensible statements!

And this is the issue with many many male parents they’re utterly incapable of providing an actual home for their child. And so they need to get in on some of the poor woman’s household.

Which puts the child/ren in a precarious position.
Literally there at the Goodwill of the other person.

It makes me laugh no end when I speak to people on dating sites about how the X took the house. My ex squandered away the equity, i had to house myself and the children without the use of benefits or any of the other accusations that get thrown around. That men would be equally entitled to if they qualified. They just can’t be bothered.

Op, I assume from all your posts that you have a unique definition of "home".

Your definition seems to be roughly "a property one lives in and has an ownership stake in"

I assume by your logic that every single person in the UK who is renting is technically homeless as they could be asked to leave and therefore do not have a home.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary the definition of home is:

"the house, apartment, etc. Where you live, especially with your family"

By that definition a house where children live even EoW with their father is a home. The ownership does not matter, it is the fact that they live there that makes it a home.

Now if you want to get semantic you could start using slightly different phrases to make your argument better.

The father has a home but is not a homeowner so yes the partner could ask him to leave and the children would become homeless EoW until the father finds a new home.