The states of West Virginia and Colorado are moving ahead with plans to garnish the winnings of casino gamblers who are delinquent on child support. Such plans should spread to Pennsylvania's fledgling casino industry.

Colorado, whose goal is to implement its proposal on July 1, would focus on all forms of winnings, while West Virginia, where the state Department of Health and Human Resources hopes that the requirement will be imposed within 90 days, initially would pursue only winnings from table games.

Of course, if Pennsylvania would launch such a child-support initiative, it would be limited to slot machine play, since Keystone State casinos are not yet authorized to offer table games.

Pennsylvania, if it were to begin such an initiative, could expect to see opposition such as that being witnessed in West Virginia and Colorado. In both states, the argument is being put forth that it is difficult to track table winnings. Critics say the plans would impose undue and unenforceable burdens.

In Colorado and West Virginia, casinos would be required to garnish the winnings of delinquent gamblers on the spot.

Internal Revenue Service rules require casinos to report large payouts — over $600 on most forms of wagering and over $1,200 on slots play — and cash prizes of more than $5,000 in tournaments and non-cash prizes worth more than $600. But it is the obligation of the gambler to report income from table games.

Up to now, parents delinquent in child support have gotten a break at casinos that is not available to them in their dealings with certain other entities, including banks and brokerage houses, which must search their records.

"It just seemed to me that if a guy owes back child support and wins big, the kids ought to get the money," said state Rep. Joel Judd, a Denver Democrat who fought for five years to overcome casino industry opposition and win approval from the legislature.

While numerous states check big winners of traditional lottery games against lists of people who owe child support, the National Conference of State Legislatures believes West Virginia and Colorado would be the first to pursue casino winnings.

New Mexico and Mississippi have statutes in place allowing casino winnings to be intercepted to satisfy child-support debts, but neither actually is doing so.

While the emphasis in Pennsylvania continues to be getting all of the state's approved casinos built and operating, state lawmakers shouldn't ignore the child-support issue.

Colorado's Judd puts forth a good argument: "I told them (casinos), there is no other line of business better equipped to handle an angry customer than yours."

If Colorado and West Virginia are able to achieve the success they are seeking on this matter, no doubt their approaches to dealing with the situation will be mimicked by some of the other casino-gambling states.

Pennsylvania should be one of those states.