Neutrosophic evaluation of sentiments through Neu-troAlgebra applied to the use of the mediation record as a means for lifting precautionary measures in child support proceedings

Abstract

This is a study of perception and effectiveness of mediation to remove cautionary measures in child support proceedings. This is based on an assessed need within family law. This was an attempt to assess the mechanism via those who know law and mediation and justice to an extent as the predictions do not rely upon prior assessments. This assesses whether the mediation is ethical/legal/social for conflict resolution wherein it's not just warring adults; minors are at stake. Why is this topical? More and more people want this natural approach to attract judicial efficiency while simultaneously, de facto wellbeing. In this case, child support proceedings can benefit from mediation which is a non-contentious arena to achieve equitable outcomes. Yet the literature fails to assess any means that render ambiguity where such expert opinions would render uncertainty in determining the effectiveness of such a mechanism in context. Thus, neutrosophics was involved via NeutroAlgebra. 21 experts           were polled with applicability from -5 to 5. Results determined a statistically significant social impact of 4.05 for social impact, a 3.95 for ethical/legal congruence but a 3.05 for congruence for access to information and a 3.43 for transparency. The differences assessed why the experts varied on prediction. The novelty of this paper derives from applying an approach to capture indeterminate findings and provide a definitive application for assessed results for factors rendered uncertain for legal decision-making. Conclusions are assessed for implementation with protocols and parent-trained mediators. Ultimately, this adds to the discourse of family law theory while practically facilitating the generation of necessary knowledge for more effective judicial policy centered on minor wellbeing.