I'm about to be 16 and my boyfriend is about to be 19 I heard that there is a thing called the romeo and juliet clause meaning I could be with an 18 year old at 16 is that true? And if I'm going to be giving birth I know you have to put names in the birth certificate by the way I live in Florida so I know he could get introuble for being with me unless the romeo and juliet clause is true but so for him not to get in trouble can I put a fake name in the birth certificate but bring in someone else? Like instead of my boyfriends name I can put a friends name right? And do they ask for an id like if we are minor we probably wouldn't have ids so would I be able to bring a friend he says an age that I can be with but he could say his last name is my boyfriends name is that possible?

Florida does have a "Romeo and Juliet" law that exempts criminality when the age difference is 4 years or less. So you may be within that.

No you can't fake a name since that would get you in more trouble. Besides which, if you have to apply for public assistance you will need to identify the father. Don't compound your problems by lying.

http://www.florida-court-forms.net/age-of-consent.html

Yes, to name a father on a birth certificate he will need an ID.

By putting someone on the birth certificate that is NOT a father, you are not only lying, but falsifying an official document that very well could get you in a lot of trouble down the road.

Yes lying about a name on the birth certficate could be serious. If for example you get public assistance, from the state, they will come after the person named on the birth certificate as the father, so he could end up owing 1000's. If you list them and get assistance for you or the child

Wow, I'm in luck! Now I can find some hottie who is 66 or older and not get in trouble. What a great birthday present!

im abt to be 16 and my boyfriend is about to be 19 i heard that there is a thing called the romeo and juliet claus ...

Statutory rape is now called "sexual battery" in Florida. It is defined in Florida Statute 794.011 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/794.011). The "Romeo and Juliet Clause" to which you refer is found in

"794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.—
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
..."
It's interesting that the "Romeo and Juliet Clause" is missing from 794.011, so technically, I suppose, he could still be prosecuted under that section. Sloppy legal draftmanship, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

The statute to which ma0641 linked (Florida Statute 943.04354) may exempt someone under a certain age from the sexual offender registration law, but he would still be a criminal (under 794.011).




... and if im going to be giving birth i know you have to put names in the birth certificate btw i live in florida ... so for him not to get in trouble can i put a fake name in the birth certificate ... ? ...

No. You are assuming something that is incorrect. First, you don't complete a birth certificate, the hospital (or whoever assists with delivery) submits a birth registration to the Florida office of Vital Statistics. The hospital simply reports the information they are given. So if, for example, you don't answer if they ask you for the name of the father, they will report "unknown".

They will not require you to give the information. In fact, unless the father signs an affidavit of paternity, they will not put that information on the report even were you to offer it.

OK, enough. When I checked I didn't check the actual text of the law. What I found indicate a gap of 4 years was enough. The actual statute makes it 7-8 years as an allowable gap to exempt from prosecution.

To me it is clear that posting the statute was helpful to the OP. So the exchange that followed was unnecessary.