Jane got divorced last year. She was not the only one.
According to Statistics New Zealand, the Family Court granted 9700 divorces in 2008, slightly below the annual average of 10,000 for the past decade.
Still, it's not as bad as 1982, which witnessed 21,900 divorces.
And of those who married the following year, about a third had divorced in the following 25 years.
No silver wedding anniversaries for them last year.
In the quarter-century to 2008, marriage rates dropped by 12%, reflecting a change in the nature of relationships, including a growth in de facto unions, a trend towards delaying marriage and increasing numbers of New Zealanders remaining single.
Not for Jane* though.
Last year may have marked her divorce, but she ended 2008 by getting married again.
What causes relationship satisfaction to decline to the point that people who once declared their love for one another can no longer live together?
In an attempt to better understand the dynamics of relationships, the Families Commission last year released the study Reaching Out: who New Zealanders turn to for relationship support, in which it conducted 50 interviews with participants of various ethnicities, genders, ages and sexual orientations.
In exploring how, why, when and from where people accessed information and support for their relationships, it also revealed that strong, well-functioning relationships are associated with resilience to stressful events and better physical and mental health.
In reviewing studies of married couples, it found the following elements were typical of a healthy relationship:
> Commitment: a long-term view of the relationship; perseverance in the face of difficulties; balancing couple and individual needs; a sense of "we-ness" and connection through friendship, shared values and history.
> Communication: positive and respectful, with elements of humour and compromise.
> Conflict resolution: an understanding that some conflict is inevitable; agreement that violence is unacceptable.
> Time together: sufficient quality and quantity; a good balance of time spent on individual pursuits and the enjoyment of each other's company.
> Intimacy and emotional support: physical and, in particular, psychological intimacy, developed and strengthened over time, particularly by overcoming difficulties.
> Deep friendship: incorporating a deep knowledge of each other's likes and dislikes and hopes and dreams.
Most couples report high satisfaction with their relationships at the beginning.
However, studies have shown relationship satisfaction erodes over the first 10 years of marriage.
The causes are varied: unrealistic expectations upon moving in together; challenges associated with cohabitation; a moderation of the initial attraction to one's partner; and a failure to develop routines and shared responsibilities.
The study's participants also claimed a range of "life events", including retirement, caring for elderly parents, discovering a partner's infidelity, infertility, miscarriage, having a child, the loss of a job, assault, moving and even marriage itself, added stress to a relationship.
Other challenges (which differ from "life events" in that they occur over a prolonged period of time) can also place strain on couples.
Financial hardship, living on a benefit, partners who failed to adopt a parental role, alcohol or drug dependency, family violence, cross-cultural misunderstandings and an inequitable distribution of responsibilities within the household were mentioned, as was work-life balance and lack of understanding of sexual expectations and needs.
Whatever the reason, the pain of separation can take some time to dissipate.
Married in 2000 and separated at the start of 2006, Jane says the announcement by her ex-husband that he was leaving came as a complete surprise.
"It was a rug pulled from under me," the 34-year-old reflects.
"I didn't see any of it coming. There was this . . . sense of failure, because I didn't initiate any of it. I was, for want of other words, pissed off."
Compounding the crisis was the fact the couple had a 9-week-old child at the time of separation.
"I didn't expect to be a solo mother at the age of 31, having to go to Work and Income to plead my case and prove that my husband walked out on me," Jane says.
"On one hand, I could have been angry and bitter, or I could suck it up and say, `OK, that's really s . . . but there is nothing I can do about it so I need to sort it out quickly'. That was my philosophy. No amount of me pleading was going to change his mind, so it was a case of moving on."
Jan Pryor, chief commissioner for the Children's Commission and author of a range of papers and publications on the implications of divorce, agrees a marriage break-up is "pretty traumatic".
"I don't believe people take divorce lightly, that they make that decision overnight."
Dr Pryor says that sense of loss and pain can also have a flow-on effect if children are involved.
"There is a danger that if parents don't protect children from their own distress, the conflict that goes on between them - even if it is quite low-key - can definitely impact on children.
"We try to tell parents not to fight in front of the children. But the reality is children also pick up the non-verbal stuff - the tension, the contemptuousness - and that's a little harder to deal with if you're feeling angry."
A leading researcher at Victoria University's Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families, Dr Pryor co-wrote an extensive report published last year by the Families Commission.
Titled Putting Kids First, it asked New Zealand parents how they made decisions about caring for their children post-separation.
Participants in the study were asked what advice they would give to other parents who were separating.
Overwhelmingly, the most common suggestion was to set aside personal and relational issues and focus on the needs of the children.
One father said the priority was: "making sure that your child's interests are at the top of the list.
And your own individual circumstances - be it broken hearts, wounded pride, frustration and anger - are nothing."
A mother: "Always put your kids first. Work out something that makes the transition smooth. Even if you have to compromise yourself . . . it's about the kids."
"The advice I would tend to give parents, and that is just based on research, is it is best to aim for a professional approach rather than trying to be friends," Dr Pryor says.
"It is pretty difficult to be friends in that situation, particularly if someone is feeling aggrieved.
But what we found is that children that did well had parents who had very clearly said, `look, we have our issues, but what's most important is that the kids get through'."
Dr Pryor's comments echo those made recently by Prof Gordon Harold, the University of Otago's Alexander McMillan Professor of Childhood Studies.
The University of Otago's Centre for Research on Children and Families and the Department of Psychological Medicine at Cardiff University, Wales, were recently awarded $424,000 for a two-year study into why some children caught in the crossfire of family conflict were more resilient than others.
Led by Prof Harold, who came from Cardiff to Otago seven months ago, the study began last month.
Using three United Kingdom-based data sets with information from primary school-aged children to 20-year-olds, it focuses on the psychological impact of parents fighting rather than just looking at the legal outcome.
It is hoped the results will be able to be used to train court workers as well as inform other support services about the needs of individual children.
"Conflict between parents is normal," Prof Harold says.
"But what is extremely important to understand is what we mean by conflict. It's how it's managed that determines whether a child will be badly affected. From [parents] never speaking to each other to witnessing violence - children can be adversely affected in different ways by the way parents manage conflict."
Prof Mark Henaghan, dean of the University of Otago's Law School, an internationally recognised expert in family law and an adviser in the research programme, believes the study is timely in light of recent developments in the New Zealand family justice system.
"Under the Domestic Violence Act of 1995, we have recognised psychological violence . . . as a form of violence against children.
"But while we can protect children from violence with a protection order, we've never dealt with how to undo the psychological damage that's been done to children."
A 1998 study, Divorce and separation: the outcomes for children, conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York, England, and also involving work by Dr Pryor, featured a comprehensive review of more than 200 previous reports.
It found that children of separated families have a higher probability of: being in poverty and poor housing; being poorer when they are adults; behavioural problems; performing less well in school; needing medical treatment; leaving school/home when young; becoming sexually active, pregnant, or a parent at an early age; depressive symptoms, high levels of smoking and drinking, and drug use during adolescence and adulthood.
However, although short-term distress at the time of separation is common, this often fades over time, with long-term adverse outcomes typically applying only to a minority of children.
Dr Pryor is keen to make the point that the majority of children do not experience those problems.
"I think it's very important for parents to know that. There is no inevitability about it. Children are much more resilient than we think.
"I know of one study in England where children were interviewed soon after their parents had separated and, yes, they were sad and all that, but the researchers went back two years later and asked how they were feeling about their parents' divorce and the kids said, `what divorce?'
"It wasn't that they didn't remember; it was that so many other things happen in children's lives as well.
"The most important thing is to keep conflict away from the kids. Secondly, as much as possible, make sure the kids keep a good, warm relationship with both parents. And that means being understanding.
"If you happen to be angry with the other person then you might think they are not a good parent, and that might not be the case."
When Jane remarried last year, it was not just a new husband she gained. He, too, had children from a previous marriage. Custody is shared with Jane's husband's ex-wife.
"People say, `ah, a blended family'. I say it's more like a mashed-up pulp. It's bloody hard work, it really is. I try to treat them the same, but it's hard. I'm pretty honest about that and so is my husband," Jane says, adding the couple make an effort to avoid any favouritism.
"The kids are really good with my son. I don't know if it's because I'm tired when I get home from work, but I can be more cranky with them."
As for the initial post-separation child care arrangements for her now 3-year-old boy, Jane says it was relatively straightforward.
She was breastfeeding and didn't return to work until he was 9 months old; also, her ex-husband left New Zealand for two years, "so I didn't have to deal with him being in my face".
"For a while we did have to negotiate child care, who would have him at the weekend and all that. I just said, `this is the way it is'.
"I was offered support through the Family Court. You can choose to have counselling, but my ex-husband didn't want that. I was also offered a few hours of funded counselling.
"It's quite hard to believe - me being married, then on the DPB. It seems a lifetime ago. Because I was on the DPB and didn't have to work, I was able to brunch with girlfriends.
"They were really great, but it was pretty hard at the time - life-changing, actually," Jane reflects.
"We were the first of our friends to get married, the first ones to have a baby and the first to get divorced. We actually divorced quite amicably, quite nicely. He is still a friend of mine. I think he's a bit of a . . . but he's still a friend."
(* Name changed at request).
