In In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437, 453, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against ordering a future termination of support after a lengthy marriage, "unless the record clearly indicates that the supported spouse will be able to adequately meet his or her financial needs at the time selected for termination of jurisdiction. In making its decision concerning the retention of jurisdiction, the court must rely only on the evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. It must not engage in speculation. If the record does not contain evidence of the supported spouse's ability to meet his or her future needs, the court should not 'burn its bridges' and fail to retain jurisdiction. " (Ibid.) On the particular facts before the court, including the existence of a 28-year marriage, there was insufficient evidence that the wife would be able to support herself after 11 years. Termination of jurisdiction was therefore improper. The court added, however, that not every case requires retention of jurisdiction, even after a lengthy marriage -- for example, where both spouses are employed or have sufficient assets to meet their needs. At some point, termination could be justified, as where the supported spouse has found adequate employment, has delayed seeking employment or has refused employment. (Ibid.)