While the Yerosolemite situation would be slightly more stable, the usual weaknesses of the Latin States and of Jerusalem would be still present.
The deep disunity of Latin States was a political plague for their survival.
Raimond of Tripoli was technically the regent (himself holding past Tripoli, lands in Galilee); but great nobles as Lusignan (Ascalon, Jaffa, basically coastal SW), Courtenay, Ibelins (more or less modern Liban), Toron, etc. had really important freedoms and the youth of Baudouin V is going to be as eventful than IOTL.
Remember that he dided in infancy, there was still room enough to let political division bear its fruits before his majority (assuming that all agree to let him reign at his fifteens).
In fact I wonder how much the presence of a child-king wouldn't favour a bit more the possibility of a civil war in Jerusalem, that Raimond prevented after his death. But that's not a given, admittedly.
Finally, I don't see Raimond or Baudouin being able to submit Renaud of Chatillon more than Baudouin IV or Guy, and that's the issue. We have a raiding lord, doing whatever fits him and being basically uncontrollable (even looked down by other latin lords).
And with the conflict, the usual problems of Latin States appears. Namely the lack of reserves (rather than lack of men, Arabo-Islamic armies having similar numbers) with a mistake or a crushing defeat means risking the lot of the kingdom.
Maybe if Raimond of Tripoli still managed to get the predominant voice, thanks to being regent, you could avoid the disaster of Hattin.
But then, it's not certain at all that some Latin lords doesn't ally themselves with Saladin (as Raimond did temporarily IOTL).
At best, with this PoD, I would see Jerusalem having a negociated peace with Saladin where they would still loose a great part of their lands (a bit more than post-Third Crusade scale, roughly).