When making up is hard to do.

You hear about people celebrating divorce. They're relieved to be through with a painful, frustrating relationship that wasn't working and had no hope for revival. Their dream is to build a new life for themselves, although it's impossible to leave the old one behind completely, especially when children are involved.

The idea of ending a poor marriage is relatively new. In England, divorce didn't even exist until 1857, and not until 1900 had most of the United States legislated grounds and procedures for divorce. The divorce rate crept steadily upward for four decades. It took a huge leap after World War II and crept up gradually again until the mid-1960s, when it took off on a sharp upward curve.

In Canada, divorce was rare until after World War II. Divorce was condemned as a threat to the family, and that general opinion prevented re@ laxation of Canadian divorce laws. Access to divorce was extremely limited until 1968 when the first unified divorce law "marital breakdown" as grounds for divorce but it required couples to live apart for three years before they could legally dissolve their marriage. Before that, adultery was virtually the only ground for divorce. That could lead to some ugly scenes as husband and wife squared off in court to fight over one another's morals as well as money, and the children.

Before World War I (1914-18), only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia had divorce courts; Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario created them during the interwar period. In provinces without access to judicial divorce, the only alternative was an appeal to Parliament for a statutory divorce, an expensive process that few could afford. The most common alternatives were desertion, legal separation, and divorce, an American jurisdiction which had no legal force in Canada, but seemed an acceptable route to the alternative of staying together.

It wasn't until 1970 that no-fault divorce arrived even in California. It was almost instantly accepted across the U.S.

With no-fault, couples only had to declare they had "irreconcilable differences," reach an oncilable differences," reach an agreement over the division of assets, custody of children, and child-support payments, and have the agreement ratified by a court. Proponents were sure that a lower divorce rate would follow because it would eliminate guilt from marital disputes and thereby make reconciliations easier. But, the American divorce rate continues to rise. It isn't alone.

Since World War II, divorce rates have risen dramatically in almost every industrialized country. In 1951, one Canadian couple divorced for every 24 that married. In 1990, four years after no-fault divorce took hold, the ratio was one divorce for every 2.4 marriages. This is down very slightly from the peak in the late 1980s. But, it still ranks Canada among the world's industrialized countries with the highest divorce rates.

While few want to ban divorce, it doesn't lead to a problem-free life. It just presents different problems.

No one would argue against leaving an abusive relationship. But, many experts say we over-estimate the rewards of divorce and perhaps end relationships that are far from over. They say the idea that divorce is a harmless quick fix to a faultering relationship has led many people into even greater unhappiness than they had suffered in their marriages.

Many also underestimate the damage it can do to children.

It used to be thought that it was better for children to see their parents part than to see them quarrelling every day. As long as we removed the stigma from divorce, the kids would be fine.

But, one of the disadvantages of breaking up is that it can leave women and children financially strapped. One American study showed that children whose parents divorced or separated were more than twice as likely than before the breakup to be living in poverty. And, some experts say children suffer in other ways -- far more than anyone thought. One comprehensive U.S. study showed that the high school drop out rate among children in one-parent families was more than double the rate of children in two-parent families.

There is evidence that the trauma of divorce is sometimes greater than that of witnessing parental strife, that the effects of divorce may include psychological damage, underachievement, and delinquency. Various studies have found that the children of divorced parents have more academic problems, lower self-esteem, worse expectation of the future, and more anxiety and depression than children whose parents did not divorce. They may even have a much higher incidence of divorce themselves. But, the effects depend very much on the relationship with the parent who leaves, and how well the parents deal with the divorce.

There also is plenty of evidence that children start suffering the effects of an unhappy family life years before their parents part. And, while a subsequent divorce can add to that emotional turmoil, many psychiatrists say that most children and adolescents are in good psychiatric health a couple of years after the breakup of a marriage. They learn to cope. What can dramatically increase their psychological problems is remarriage while a child is in early adoleseence. According to American psychologist Mavis Hetherington about 40% of these children develop serious psychiatric problems.

In 1996, a Statistics Canada study reported that about 400,000 Canadian children under 12 years old, or 8.6% of the total, live in stepfamilies. Little is actually known about how stepfamilies function and whether children do better or worse in them than in other sorts of families. The study eventually will examine about 23,000 children in about 13,000 households over as much as 20 years of their lives.

However, a 1991 report in England by the Family Policy Studies Centre, found that remarriage poses a greater threat to children's prospects than accepted wisdom would have us believe. It shows that step chiIdren, rather than children in one-parent families, may end up suffering most from marital upheaval.

The National Child Development Study, on which the findings are based, tracks the lives of 17,000 children born in 1958. It looks at key socio-economic factors to see how family background has influenced development. On almost every count, children in stepfamilies, where a divorced parent, usually the mother, has remarried, come off worse compared with those in two-parent families and single-parent families. Girls, for example, are twice as likely to leave school at 16; 3.5 times as likely to marry before the age of 20; and, twice as likely to have had a child in their teens. Thus, they keep the cycle going of low academic achievement and earning potential, and the greater risk of divorce associated with early marriage. By comparison, girls in single-parent families are only a third more likely to leave school at 16; no more likely to marry early; and, less likely than stepchildren to have had a child by the age of 20.

Young adults in stepfamilies are far more likely to have left home by the age of 18, often as a result of friction. The result can be young people, cut off from stepfamilies at an early age, and starting independent lives with little education and few opportunities for work.

A single parent may focus all her attention on her children after divorce. However, remarriage inevitably sets up a rivalry, the more so if there are children from a previous marriage, or offspring from the new union. All this is piled on top of the trauma of a previous divorce. It is not surprising that second marriages are sometimes rockier, with even less likelihood of working, than first marriages.

Although the divorce rate seems to be settling, there is some debate as to why.

In Canada, the number of divorces in 1990 dropped more than 3% from the year before, to just over 78,000, according to Statistics Canada. That's the lowest level since the federal government's speedy-divorce legislation became law in 1986.

Most experts thought the recession accounted for the shift. A lot of people would have a hard time paying the hefty bills divorce usually incurs. And, spouses are increasingly dependent on two incomes to make ends meet.

Job losses, stalled real estate markets, and fear of poverty all were seen as powerful reasons for staying in a mediocre marriage.

Some also think there is a move away from an emphasis on individual rights that characterized the 1980s, toward social duty and family values. The polling firm Environics has found a steady trend toward increased responsibility for the family and the value of the family. Decima Research has found the same and suggests it might be due partly to baby-boomers settling down to the all-consuming job of raising children.

And, because people are finding that divorce doesn't necessarily cure what's wrong, family therapists say couples who might have opted for divorce a few years ago are seeking help to stay together.

As one married mother pointed out in a recent article in the Globe and Mail newspaper, "perhaps, it's time we all paused and looked at the crumbling institution of marriage through the eyes of our children -- before we begin unraveling unsatisfactory relationships in search of personal fulfillment and happiness ... Neither one of us is responsible for making the other `happy,' but we are both responsible for keeping our marriage `alive.' Happiness is a by-product of that commitment."

One American marriage counsellor describes marriage as "an impossible proposition to begin with. There are these divergent needs: people want companionship, closeness, and so on, but at the same time they want to be themselves, so they are constantly negotiating." He blames the romanticism that surrounds marriage as a major source of marital disillusionment -- many people enter marriage blissfully blinded to practicality. They see marriage as an end rather than a beginning and don't realize that relationships need a lot of work. When things go wrong, they don't know how to identify what's wrong, "they don't know how to talk to each other, and they don't have any support from an extended family."

Young people need to be made aware of the dire consequences of marriages carelessly undertaken: marriage and divorce education is as critical to our society's health as sex education.

They need to know that there is no magical relationship that will make up for everything else in life that is unfulfilling. They need to know that even the best relationships include conflict; that the successful ones learn to deal with their anger not to fear it, and that finding solutions to problems can lead to deeper levels of intimacy.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. The 1986 Divorce Act created the concept of no-fault divorce. To help vent the anger and guilt associated with a marital break-up that used to come out in court, one Toronto child psychologist suggests we need a solemn ceremony to mark the end of such a profoundly important part of a person's life. Draft what you think should be included in a divorce ceremony.

2. One newspaper editorial points out that by 2000 only one in two children will grow up in a conventional family unit. It says those who talk about tighter divorce laws and restoring, "the family" are dodging the real issue -- which is how to make individuals aware of the responsibilities and problems that come with choice and personal freedom. The writer asks: "Has the growing value that we have placed on personal freedom undermined our commitment to stable families? Are the expectations we place on marriage and marriage partners too high? Is it irresponsible to dissolve an unhappy, but not impossible, marriage when children are involved? Were old-fashioned couples who stayed together `for the sake of the children' right after all?" Discuss.