In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.P.O. and J.R.B.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1998).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C3-98-1680

In the Matter of the Welfare of:

D.P.O. and J.R.B.

 Filed March 9, 1999

 Affirmed and Motion Granted

Davies, Judge

Kandiyohi County District Court

File No. J69751119

John L. Kallestad, P.O. Box 1126, Willmar, MN 56201 (for appellant Kandiyohi County)

John E. Mack, Mack & Daby, P.A., P.O. Box 302, New London, MN 56273 (for respondent mother)

Bonnie Kleman, 2015 First St. S., Suite 114, Willmar, MN 56201 (for children)

Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 DAVIES, Judge

This appeal arises from a district court order charging appellant Kandiyohi County with the expenses of respondent's appeal from an order terminating her parental rights. We affirm and grant respondent's motion to strike and for sanctions.

 FACTS

The Kandiyohi County District Court terminated the parental rights of respondent Mary Rodriguez. Respondent was represented by the public defender in that proceeding, but the public defender would not pursue an appeal. The district court granted respondent's request that it appoint counsel to represent her in the appeal, and ordered appellant Kandiyohi County to pay for respondent's appointed appellate counsel. This appeal from that order followed.

 D E C I S I O N

Appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly construed statutory law in charging it with the expenses of respondent's appeal and erred by charging such expenses without taking evidence. Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. 1985).

 I.

Where a parent is indigent, counsel may be made available "at public expense" to appeal a juvenile court ruling. Minn. R. Juv. P. 63.01, subd. 2(D). Rule 63.01 is silent as to the public entity liable for the costs of the appeal. The district court, therefore, looked to Minn. Stat. § 260.251, which assigns costs in the underlying juvenile proceeding.

Appellant argues that Minn. Stat. § 563.01 (1998), which governs in forma pauperis proceedings, also governs the assignment of expenses for respondent's appointed counsel and demands a different result. But section 260.251, which is specific to juvenile proceedings, is the applicable statute because this was a juvenile case. See Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (1998) (where statutes appear to conflict courts shall interpret them to give effect to both or make specific an exception to the general). The district court did not err by applying section 260.251.

 II.

Appellant also contends that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to support ordering appellant to compensate respondent's attorney on appeal. The county in which juvenile proceedings are held is clearly charged with the expense of reasonable compensation for an attorney appointed by the juvenile court. Minn. Stat. § 260.251, subd. 2(e) (1998). The proceeding to terminate respondent's parental rights occurred in Kandiyohi County. The statute is clear and we will not read into it any legislative intent to require additional proof before placing this financial burden on appellant. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1998) (letter of law not to be ignored where language is unambiguous). The district court did not err; the plain language of the statute dictates the result and no further proof was necessary.

 III.

Respondent moved to strike appellant's reply brief and requested sanctions against appellant. Appellant's reply brief makes an argument that was not made in its brief and was not responsive to respondent's brief. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 3 (purpose of reply brief is to respond to new matter raised in respondent's brief); McIntire v. State, 458 N.W.2d 714, 717 n.2 (Minn. App. 1990) (issue not raised or argued in appellant's brief cannot be argued in reply brief), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1990). The argument in the reply brief is not authorized.

The argument in appellant's reply brief was also unsupported by the record. An argument that is unfounded is subject to a sanction awarding attorney fees. Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (1998). Appellant's reply brief is stricken and we award respondent $300 in attorney fees.

Affirmed and motion granted.