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?

Their home is with their Dad so if he’s asked to leave their home becomes wherever he goes. They only become homeless if Dad is also homeless.

OP are you in a scenario where someone ids accusing you of making their kids homeless?

Yes, the problem here would appear to be the lack of bill paying. Unless he's earning his keep in other ways such as covering the woman's caring responsibilities perhaps, but they're usually not.

Set up is rather different if both parents own the property. In a situation where the woman owns the property and he moves in and sees his children there at times, it is more a temporary home.

I don't really understand the purpose of your post op.
What is your point?
Do you have a personal dilemma?

It's pretty clear he/she is on a wind up!

It doesn't concern anyone really except the person who's home it is. If they consented for their partner to move in and have the kid EOW at the house then presumably it is the kids home for the period they're sleeping there?

If the woman who owns the house doesn't want that then they should say so and not allow it.

But otherwise why shouldn't it be the kids home, people from divorced families often have two homes?

Home is where you live. If the parents have agreed say 80/20, then the fact they are with the their father at his home (as in where he lives even if he doesn't pay to be there) even though it's for a smaller amount of time then that is their home too.

No it’s not. He’s not staying there temporarily until he finds somewhere new. He’s living there until something happens - like breaking up. So it’s his permanent home, not a temporary one. Nothing lasts for ever but unless you’ve not told us he’s agreed to move out in a few weeks, then it’s his permanent home - as permanent as is possible when you’re living with someone else who you may one day break up with. But there’s a chance he could be there for 2 years or 10 years or 40 years so it’s not temporary

Maybe a real life example will help.

My parents divorced when we were young.

My mum found a new partner and moved into his house. She didn’t own it, it was his, but because she lived there it was her home and also ours. As well as home to his own kids.

My dad also found a new partner. She moved into his house. She didn’t own it, but because she lived there it was her home, and her kids home, and it was also our home because we stayed with our Dad at weekends.

My Dad and his partner eventually ended up separating, and she and her kids moved out. His home stopped being their home at that point. That didn’t mean it WASNT their home during the years that they lived there.

Op was being flippant.

op it’s his home whilst he is living there irrespective of contributing to the household budgets, by extension its also his children’s home.
he can be asked to leave at any point. As soon as he leaves he and his offspring no longer have a home at that particular address. If you ask him to leave you are not making him and his kids homeless, so you don’t need to feel guilty about .

Do you consider him as a guest rather than a partner, and therefore his kids are guests?

I would still call it a temporary home. He does not own the place, so he can only stay as long as the relationship is good and she wants him there. If they break up or she changes her mind, he has to leave right away. That is not permanent, because he has no control or security.

You can call it what you like. It obviously suits you to pretend it’s a temporary home. But you’re wrong and it’s a definition you’ve completely made up. But you already know that

You're confusing 'house' with 'home'. She owns the house but it's a home to everyone who lives there. ('Wherever I lay my hat, that's my home...') Or are you suggesting that the SC are homeless, even though they live there? That would be ridiculous.

So what is your point Op?????
Are you having a slow Friday afternoon at work and so thought you’d have a bit of a laugh on Mumsnet? Trying to be as annoying as you possibly can?
You’re acting like my annoying little brother

This thread is bonkers.
I agree with the OP, and I am not sure why her position is so contentious.
In the scenario described, this is not a stable or secure home for the DC, so I hope they would actually have another, proper home. Acknowledging this is not saying the DC are not welcome EOW but simply that dad cannot say he is providing a home for his DC in this scenario. The DC are staying with him EOW whilst he is living with his GF. It would be pushing it to say this is DC’s home.
The GF has no obligation to house the DC, and dad should really step up and get his own place.

If it's so temporary and may be stopped at any moment, why are two responsible adults engaging in it and dragging children into the situation?

Children should only be introduced to a partner if the parent and the partner have the reasonable expectation of being together long term. If that's not the case, you shouldn't be letting a parent move in with you and he shouldn't be considering it.

The question has been answered. If the father lives there, it's the children's home. Your options are:

1. Have a father live in your home and accept that his children now view it as their home too
2. Literally anything other than that- date someone without kids, date him but don't move in together, whatever you want.

You've strawmanned though.

The question isn't 'can the father say he is providing a home', the question is 'why is/ should it be called the children's home'. It is also irrelevant whether they have another home or not.

Whether it is paid for by the father or not, or whether they have another home or not, the house they share with their father when they stay with him is called their home.

You seem to be equating the word home with owning the property you live in @cardycard , when they're not equivalent at all.

I rented for years, that house was my home, despite me not owning it.

My daughter is 18, she has now ownership in the house we live in. I could kick her out at any time if I wanted to. (Obviously I'm not actually going to). So its her home.

I spent 3 months on a cattle ranch in Australia. I didn't own any of it, but for those three months, the little room where I could lie in bed with a beer at the end of a day felt very much like home.

I'm off on holiday this week, at some point I'm sure I'll say to DP "Shall we have one more beer or head home? I'm not talking about going back to our house, but the hotel, but somehow she'll understand exactly what I mean"

Home is a very malleable concept, its not a tangible thing For most adults, home is the place they regularly go to sleep. It's where they can leave their stuff, and have a reasonable expectation it's not going to get nicked. Homes can be permanent, they can be temporary. The hotel next week will feel a bit like home, but less like home than our house.

For kids, most of the time "home" is a much simpler concept. Home is your parents.

My Mum died when I was 38. I never lived in the last house she owned, yet it was always "home". I owned my own home, but her house was also home. Right up until the moment she died. At that point, it stopped being home, just became a house that, ironically, I now owned.

She’s not said they don’t have another home - they clearly live with their mum. Their dad has moved in with another woman and that’s now his home. He doesn’t need to step up and get somewhere else as he’s moved in with his partner. He has a home - and when his kids are over that is also their home

Does this also mean it's not the man's home and he should always have it in the back of his mind that he must not get comfortable, lest he be thrown out?

But by your definition no-one with kids would ever move in with anyone! When in fact it’s a completely normal and common thing to do.

The difference is, usually the person who owns the home isn’t holding that ownership over the head of their partner or threatening them with how they’re only there “temporarily”…

Your conflating the morality of should the father pay bills with the fact that he lives there, and therefore it is his home

Should a woman who owns her own home move in a man with DC who doesn't pay pills or rent? No absolutely not. But that doesn't change the fact that the cocklodger does live there, and therfore it is his and by extension his children's home

I understand that.
I disagree that someone living with their GF in her house and seeing their DC two or three nights a fortnight is providing them with a home.

I think the main difference in this scenario is that it’s a romantic partner moving in to make a home with the person who owns the house. The intention is usually permanent for most people. It becomes the Dad’s home, therefore it becomes the children’s home.

If the intention was temporary then I could see thinking of it as just staying at Dad’s girlfriend’s house.

So if Dad is just moving in for six months while he’s getting building work done on his own house then Dad and kids are ‘staying’ with girlfriend but their home is Dad’s house.

It would be like temporarily staying with your aunt for a few months while you were between houses - you might make yourself at home but you wouldn’t think if it as your home, you’d think of it as your aunt’s home that she was nice enough to let you use.

However if the two adults have decided to move in together and create a home together then when kids come they are living there too. When you decide to live with a person with children you are part of a family home.