In family law, most cases will not require a trial. In some cases, certain issues may require a trial due to the inability to settle the issue.
The big questions usually are, will the trial actually gain you anything, and if so, for how long and would it be worth it if you don't win? Depending on the circumstances of the case/issues, and how difficult the opposing party/or the attorney defending, will make an obvious difference.
There are calculated risks in any trial, even if you know you will win. If there is a bankruptcy involved, you should make sure to consult an attorney that knows bankruptcy ahead of time, not the week before the trial?
If there is a legal issue that is definitely on your side, great. Then why are you needing the trial-- is it because of a difficult attorney? Is it because of a difficult client that doesn't care what it costs to go to trial? Is it because the other side wants gratification to make you pay? None of these things are unheard of, by any stretch.
While an issue involving a legal aspect of ongoing spousal is usually a bona fide issue, some issues should likely be worked out without need for judge to tell you what to do. A move away issue is more likely to require judge's experience than other issues.
Attorney has seen counsel drag in unknown witnesses from other states that no one even knows, and the client himself or herself is not even present? Further, attorney has seen judges ignore the statutory law and just make decisions based on
almost nothing (meaning, there is no real evidence) and judge just makes the call--for example, almost no judge is going to award custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence where a criminal protective order is in place, and where that criminal protective order has been broken many times? But we have seen this happen not once, twice, or more times........when it should realistically almost never happen.
We have seen valid restraining orders get dropped due to other reasons (meaning--the domestic or TRO is and was valid, but judge decided that some other issues were more important and that to get the other issues finalized, dropping the TRO was apparently easier or faster or both--??)
We have seen judge ignore valid testimony and only focus on certain witnesses. One must remember that attorneys sometimes inherit cases that have been done by pro per clients, so sometimes the record of the case has not been done properly; key facts may have been left out or ignored; judge may have ignored key issues like protective orders and violation of such orders; the prosecuting criminal court may have allowed a criminal to go free (even with very high bail), even with overwhelming proof of crimes? When these types of cases get to trial, it's a crap shoot. That means you may not win no matter how good your case actually is? If you do not believe that, then you have not seen what actually transpires in other cases, since you would not be there to witness it? It is attorney's opinion, that just having a trial does not necessarily mean you will get what you want or deserve. In a number of cases you will not prevail, even if you are sure your evidence is the winning evidence.
Having a trial is not necessarily the destination you may really need or want, since there is a lot more to consider when deciding your options. Trials are often over rated for family law, as many family law litigants are not happy with their trial results. That is fairly typical in family law, when compared to criminal or civil cases which have much more stringent rules in general.