[FR_addict]

One statute referes to others and so forth.
The best I can tell, to be a guardian Michael S. cannot engage in lewd and lascivious behavior as defined below:

Guilt of an Offense Prohibited Under Fla. Stat. §§ 435.03 and 744.474 (12)

(12) Having been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited under s. 435.03 or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.--If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

[supercat]

(12) Having been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited under s. 435.03 or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction.

I think the problem is that almost nobody is prosecuted under that statute, and indeed nobody would stand for widespread prosecutions under that statute. On the other hand, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, it would seem prosecution in this case might be justifiable:

• Lawrence v. Texas dealt with private behavior which had apparently only come to the police's attention due to circumstances which were not reasonably foreseeable. Michael's behavior here, and evidence of it, is very public.
• Although cohabitation among unmarried people is common, jury would probably find that certain aspects Michael's behavior went far beyond even today's moral standards.

If a speed limit is 40mph, the fact that cops routinely ignore cars going 50mph may be grounds for overturning a ticket issued for going 41mph, but would hardly be grounds for overturning one issued for going 90mph.