Child-Support System Shifts to Payroll Withholding : Family law: New federal statute takes a cue from some states. But some employers are unhappy, contending they should not be responsible for a non-workplace issue.

On Jan. 1, 1994, a quiet revolution will be won in the way Americans pay child support. On that day, federal law will require virtually all new child-support awards to be withheld from the paychecks of absent parents.

It is a momentous change, at least on the face of it. From that day on, Americans can regard child-support in the same light as taxes and health insurance--hidden payments that don’t come out of anyone’s wallet because they never make it that far.

But like a lot of momentous changes, especially those dreamed up in Washington, this one is neither as simple nor as straightforward as it might seem.

To begin with, there won’t be any change in some states because they’ve required withholding of child-support payments for years. Other states will probably miss the federal deadline, which has been lurking in the statute books since the Family Support Act was enacted in 1988.

“It’s a very fluid situation right now,” said Craig Hathaway, a senior policy specialist at the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Translation: States are still scrambling to try to comply with the federal rules, and some don’t have a prayer of making it on time.

“I don’t think (it’s) going to work,” said Irwin Garfinkel, a professor of social work at Columbia University who has written extensively about child support. “I think we’re going to have a little problem here,” he added.

None of this means withholding won’t happen. It’s already used to pay child support to welfare recipients, and the new rules--which expand it to nearly everyone else--will eventually make it universal. Under the new law, exceptions are basically made only when couples agree on alternative arrangements.

Almost everyone agrees that withholding works, ensuring that many women and children (a few men are on the receiving end, but very few) will receive child-support payments without a monthly tug-of-war.

Of course, some men may be dismayed to learn that their paychecks are suddenly lighter because of child-support payments--and that their personal lives are suddenly the business of their bosses. The bosses, who will have additional paperwork to fill out, aren’t going to be happy either.

“It’s not really a workplace issue whether a guy is making his child-support payment,” complained D. J. Gribbin, a tax policy analyst with the National Federation of Independent Business.

Employers, he said, may well ask, “Why am I responsible for this?”

The answer: Because the government says so.

Still, sensitivity to business may explain one aspect of the new law that is anathema to many state governments. Federal officials say the new rules require public agencies to mail the child-support checks.

That way, employers have to make out only one check each month--to the public agency. Otherwise, they would have to send checks directly to each child’s custodial parent. That might be no problem for a business with only one or two employees with child-support orders, but it could be daunting for larger employers.

Some states now require businesses to send checks directly to the custodial parents, however. And state officials are loath to lift the burden from employers’ shoulders and put it on their own.

That has led state officials, represented by the National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators, to argue that federal officials are misinterpreting the law.

Federal officials disagree, but say they are working with state officials to work out the disagreements. Meanwhile, states like Massachusetts and California--which put the full burden on businesses--acknowledge that they won’t comply with the new federal requirements. The showdown could lead to federal sanctions, or to a change in the law.

Payroll withholding for child support is hardly a new concept. Some states have used it in some cases since the turn of the century. It was a way for judges to make sure their child-support awards were carried out.

“Couples would argue,” Garfinkel explained. “He’d say, ‘I made the payment,’ and she’d say, ‘No you didn’t,’ and the judges got sick of that.”

In the 1980s, led by Wisconsin, a few states experimented with requiring withholding in all cases. At the same time, the federal government was gradually requiring it in all welfare cases and in those in which the paying parent fell in arrears.

By 1991, $3.26 billion was being withheld annually.

The potential is there to more than double that amount, although it will take a while, since the new rules only apply to new cases, not existing ones.

But even the biggest boosters of the tactic acknowledge that, by itself, it will do little.

“Although there’s a lot of attention paid to withholding and it’s very important, it turns out it’s a very small part of the problem,” Garfinkel said.