I would say that's more of an indirect expense.  It's not really defined so I suppose it's up to interpretation.  It may also be considered an uncovered medical expense.  But, it's not a doctor-ordered prescription so it's really discretionary.

If you are receiving child support, you are responsible for all of the direct and indirect expenses.  The guidelines assume your ex doesn't need any money for anything so he pays all of his share to you.  Therefore, you are responsible for all expenses.  The only time this can be challenged somewhat is when he is receiving a parenting time adjustment.

I don't mean to be so blunt about it, but the way the guidelines are developed, that really is the case.  What the judge orders may be something different though.  Hope that helps.

Are we talking about a bottle of muscinex or cough syrup?  It sounds like a rather minor thing to raise a fuss over.  I think technically he would have to buy his own medications during his parenting time.  But, I don't think that's really fair to the kids and it doesn't promote co-parenting.  If you're spending $100/month on these things, it might be worth the argument.

I see.  Well, I can only speak to what the guidelines and laws say about these things.  The way the guidelines work for parents not sharing time equally is that the parent who receives support is in charge of everything.  That includes all indirect and direct expenses.  The parenting time adjustment could potentially be argued in this case, but technically there is nothing in the guidelines that says receipt of a parenting time adjustment relieves the residential parent of their duty to provide everything.

If the court found that you were not providing all the needed expenses, it's possible they could award him a further reduction in support to compensate.  If the court found he is required to provide all this, he would simply be ordered to provide it from here on out.

Personally, I think I would just provide it to keep the peace and avoid the conflict.  Its not a large expense and I think the court could maybe see it either way.  Its a coin toss.  This kind of issue will subside in time as most cases show.