Key legal question
Whether the appeal against the incidental order appointing an expert in child-protection proceedings was admissible.
Extracted holding
The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant failed to show irreparable harm under Art. 93(1)(a) LTF and did not invoke the exception in Art. 93(1)(b) LTF.
Extracted reasoning
The challenged decision was incidental; the appeal brief contained no legally sufficient reasoning on admissibility and merely expressed disagreement with the decision.