Id. “We will not read into a statute that which is not the manifest intent of the legislature. For this reason, it is as important to recognize not only what a statute says, but also what a statute does not say.” Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 809 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied.

Bonita claims the issue before us is one of statutory interpretation, i.e., whether the trial court's award of post-judgment interest was proper under Section 101. Bonita therefore claims that we should review the trial court's order de novo. See Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 805 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), trans. denied.

October 18, 2007. Appeal from the 866 N.E.2d 798. Transfer denied.

Prima facie error, in this context, means "'at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.'" Id. (quoting Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 810 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007), trans. denied).

In such a situation, we will not undertake the burden of developing arguments for Mother. Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. We apply a less stringent standard of review, and we may reverse the trial court's decision if the appellant can establish prima facie error.

Because Father has not provided cogent argument or an adequate record, we cannot determine error occurred below and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order to transfer the pending paternity matter from Indiana to Texas. See, e.g., Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming transfer of jurisdiction where appellant failed to demonstrate prima facie error), reh'g denied, trans. denied sub nom. Cox v. Cox, 878 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 2007).

]" Appellant's Br. at p. 4. [8] We initially note that Purcell has failed to file an appellee's brief. In such a situation, we will not undertake the burden of developing arguments for her. Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We apply a less stringent standard of review, and we may reverse the trial court's decision if the appellant can establish prima facie error.

At the outset, we note that Father has failed to submit an appellee's brief. As such, we need not undertake the burden of developing arguments for him. Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 810 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied.

The statutory language includes no such requirement for a predicate hearing and we will not read into a statute “that which is not the manifest intent of the legislature.” Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 809 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. To the extent that Father suggests the statutory scheme is constitutionally infirm because it allows deprivation of parental rights upon unsubstantiated allegations, he failed to present his constitutional challenge in the trial court and it is waived.

For this reason, it is as important to recognize not only what a statute says, but also what a statute does not say." Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798, 809 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied.