Moreover, by refusing to fully enforce a sister-state support order in a URESA action, the court does indirectly what it could not do directly — it conditions the obligation to pay support on compliance with a visitation order. (See Towne v. Buckingham (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) 624 So.2d 858.) The result ignores the best interests of the children by encouraging noncustodial parents to violate support orders and removing any incentive these parents might have to maintain a parental relationship with their children.