Life insurance has one purpose: to replace money that would disappear if the insured person died. That is why parents of minor children need it, so the kids are provided for if a parent dies before they are grown. It is also the logic behind the final-expense policies pitched to retirees, so adult children are not handed a funeral bill. The test is always the same. Would this person’s death cause someone a financial hardship? If yes, insure the life. If no, keep the premium.

The test cuts both ways. A single homeowner with no dependents generally does not need a policy to pay off the mortgage; nobody is waiting to keep the house, and the estate can sell it and settle the loan. Apply the same test to a child and, for most families, the answer is no.

Why a child usually does not need a policy

The death of a child is a tragedy, and it is also rare. When it does happen, it seldom creates a lasting financial hardship once the immediate expenses are paid, because nobody was living on the child’s income. So a policy on a child is not really insurance against a loss of support. It is a small death benefit attached to a savings feature, sold at an age when the insurance itself costs little because the risk is low.

That is the right way to read the child whole life policies advertised on television. Gerber Life’s Grow-Up Plan, the best known, is whole life coverage issued from 14 days through age 17 in face amounts of $5,000 to $50,000. The premium is locked for life, the policy builds cash value, and the coverage amount doubles during the year the child is 18 with no increase in premium. Gerber’s own price example is as little as $3.70 a month for $5,000 of coverage on an infant in Delaware. None of that is a trick. It is simply a small permanent policy, and small permanent policies are an expensive way to save. If the goal is a college fund, a 529 plan is built for that job and is tax-advantaged. If the goal is money for the family if the worst happens, the priority is the parents’ coverage, not the child’s.

Insure the parents first

A parent’s death is the event that would actually upend a child’s life, and term coverage on a parent is inexpensive relative to what it protects. A healthy nonsmoking 30-year-old can buy a $500,000, 20-year term policy for roughly $25 to $30 a month, based on Policygenius data from October 2025. If either parent is uninsured or underinsured, every dollar of a child policy’s premium is better spent there. The trade-offs between term and permanent coverage are laid out in Term Life vs. Whole Life: Pros and Cons.

The cheaper route: a child rider on your own policy

If you want some coverage on a child anyway, for final expenses or to lock in insurability, the least expensive way to get it is usually not a separate policy. Most term and permanent policies offer a children’s term rider, and the terms are remarkably consistent across carriers:

  • Coverage per child is modest. State Farm’s children’s term rider provides up to $20,000 per eligible child on its term policies; Western & Southern describes the typical rider as $1,000 to $25,000 per child, available from 14 days old.
  • One rider covers every child. Current and future children, including adopted children and stepchildren, are covered under a single rider, and the cost is usually the same regardless of how many children you have.
  • It costs a few dollars a month. A $10,000 child rider can run a few dollars a month, according to a Policygenius analysis, which is why it is the number to compare against any standalone child policy.
  • It ends, but it converts. The rider typically expires when the child reaches 25 or the parent reaches 65 to 75. Before then the child can usually convert it to a permanent policy for up to five times the rider amount without proving insurability. State Farm, for example, lets the child buy up to five times the rider amount on their 18th birthday and convert up to five times at 25.

Some carriers also sell a guaranteed-insurability rider, sometimes called a guaranteed purchase option or additional purchase benefit, that lets the insured buy more coverage at set ages or life events regardless of health. Gerber’s version lets the insured child later purchase up to ten times the original coverage, up to $100,000 of additional insurance, with no health questions, at windows that include 90 days after age 21, marriage, the birth of a child, and ages 25 and 35. That option is the genuinely valuable part of any child policy, and it is worth asking whether a rider on your own policy carries something similar.

The two real exceptions

The child earns money the family depends on. A child actor, athlete or performer whose income supports the household fails the hardship test in the other direction: their death would create a real financial gap. That is a legitimate reason for coverage sized to the income at stake, the same reasoning that applies to any earner.

The child has a condition that could make coverage hard to get later. Life insurance is underwritten on the applicant’s health at the time of application, and a diagnosis in childhood can mean higher rates or a decline as an adult. A whole life policy issued now, or a rider with a strong conversion feature, is coverage the child can carry for life without ever being re-underwritten, and many such policies allow the amount to be increased without medical testing at adulthood. For a family facing that situation, locking in insurability early is a sound reason to buy, and the small face amount matters less than the guaranteed option to grow it.

The short answer

Run the hardship test. For most children the answer is no, and the money belongs in the parents’ term coverage and a college account. If you want a modest benefit or an insurability guarantee, price a child rider on your own policy before you price a standalone plan; it is usually cheaper and covers every child at once. And if you have not yet bought coverage on yourselves, start there. The timing case is made in When Is the Right Time to Buy Life Insurance?