A custody dispute/modification to get custody of a child where the case involves an outcry of sexual abuse by the child and an open investigation is documented with the DA's office but no charges have been filed yet on the alleged perpetrator. Due to the open investigation with Law Enforcement, a family court Judge ordered a permanent injunction against mother NOT TO ALLOW alleged perpetrator around child unsupervised. Since that order, child's mother has married alleged perpetrator and is now seeking to lift/remove permanent injunction as well as remove geographical restriction on where child is to live so that she can move with child to live with now husband (alleged perpetrator). NOTE: Investigation still remains open.
Although knowing that nothing is guaranteed with a potential outcome on the ruling, what are the pros and cons of litigating this type of case in front of a Jury vs. a Judge?
My question is presented assuming that some of you may have had some experience with these type of cases and seen the outcome when litigated via both methods.
I have heard that a hearing before a Judge you only have to worry about convincing one person vs. several people when done before a jury.