Life insurance for children

Send this to a licensed advisor

No price appears on this page, and none is sent by email. What a contract costs depends on the person and the design, and no honest figure can be produced from three answers.

What a policy on a child actually holds

• Insurability is the substanceA child insured today can add coverage at stated ages without answering a single health question. That right is written into the contract when it is issued, and later health does not remove it.
• In Quebec, money payable to a minor is not simply handed overAbove a threshold set by law the amount goes through the tutorship regime and is administered until majority. The beneficiary designation decides who receives it and how.
• The owner decides, not the childThe owner controls the contract: the beneficiary, the payments, any transfer at majority. That is settled on the application.

What life insurance on a child actually is

A policy on a child is an ordinary life insurance contract in which the person insured is a child. A parent or a grandparent applies, owns the contract and pays for it, and names the beneficiary. Provincial insurance law permits it, because a parent or grandparent is recognised as having an insurable interest in a child, and once the child reaches the age set by the province the child’s own consent is required for a contract on their life.

Almost all of these contracts are permanent rather than term. They are small, they are usually written so the payments run for a defined number of years and then stop while the coverage continues, and many are participating, which means the contract may receive a share of the insurer’s participating account. Any such dividend is declared annually at the insurer’s discretion and is not guaranteed.

That is the mechanical description, and it is the easy part. The difficult part is the question of what the contract is actually for, because the answer is not the one the word insurance normally carries, and a page that does not say so plainly is not being honest with the person reading it.

This is not protection in the ordinary sense

Life insurance exists to replace what stops when somebody dies. A child earns nothing, supports nobody, and guarantees no debt. When a child dies, no household income disappears. There is no financial hole to fill, and nothing about the enormity of that loss changes the arithmetic.

So the first honest sentence about this product is that it is not protection in the ordinary sense, and anybody who sells it as though a family would be financially exposed without it is selling it wrongly. This page will not do that. It will not describe a funeral for a child, and it will not use a parent’s fear as an argument, because a purchase made from fear is a purchase the household regrets and cancels, usually at a loss.

What a small contract on a child does cover, in the plain sense, is the cost of an unimaginable week and the time away from work that follows it. That is real, and it is a small amount of money, and most households can meet it without a contract bought years in advance.

The reasons to consider one are different, they are financial rather than protective, and they are set out in the sections that follow. They are worth understanding on their own terms. They are not worth an evening of anxiety.

What it actually buys: the right to buy more later

The substantive thing a policy on a child buys is future insurability. A contract issued today on a healthy young life fixes something that cannot be fixed afterwards: the fact that this person is insurable, and the classification the insurer applied.

That matters because insurability is not permanent. A diagnosis in adolescence or in a person’s twenties, a condition that is entirely manageable and has no bearing on how long somebody lives, can still make coverage more expensive later or, occasionally, unavailable on ordinary terms. Type one diabetes, epilepsy, a serious mental health diagnosis, a condition found on a routine scan: none of these prevents a full life, and all of them change how a new application is assessed.

A policy already in force is not reassessed. The contract is issued, and it stays as issued, whatever happens to that person’s health afterwards. That is the whole of the mechanism.

Most of these contracts are then written with an option that lets the owner buy additional coverage at stated dates or at stated life events, without any evidence of health. The amounts available, the dates on which the option can be used and the age at which it expires are all set out in the contract, and they differ between insurers, which makes them the terms to read rather than the ones to assume.

The honest counterweight belongs in the same section. Most children grow up healthy and can buy insurance as adults on ordinary terms, and a household paying for this is paying against something that probably will not happen. That is what insurance is, and it is a reason to size the decision modestly rather than a reason to dismiss it.

The contract itself, and what paid up means

These policies are usually sold in one of two shapes. A participating whole life contract with payments limited to a set number of years, so the coverage is paid up while the child is still young and nothing more is owed for the rest of their life. Or a plain permanent contract, close to term to one hundred in behaviour, with a level cost that continues and little or no value inside it.

Paid up is the phrase that sells these, and it deserves an accurate meaning. It means the payments end on the schedule the contract states, while the coverage continues. It does not mean the coverage is free, and it does not mean the money paid has been set aside somewhere for the child. It means the premiums for that amount of insurance were compressed into a defined number of years, and the higher payment in those years is exactly why the later ones are not required.

A participating contract also develops a cash value over time, and the dividend credited each year can be used to buy additional paid up coverage, which increases both the amount insured and the value inside the contract. The dividend is declared annually at the insurer’s discretion and is not guaranteed, and the values illustrated at the time of sale are illustrations rather than commitments. A reader who takes only one thing from this section should take that sentence.

The one thing a child has that nobody else has: time

A contract issued on a young life has a longer runway than any other policy an insurer writes. Where the design is participating, the guaranteed values and any additional paid up coverage accumulate over a horizon measured in decades rather than years, and the effect of compounding over a period that long is the honest financial argument for this purchase. It is also the slowest argument, because nothing interesting happens for many years.

What can be done with that value, eventually, is the ordinary set of options that any permanent contract offers. It can be left alone. It can be reached through an advance made by the insurer against the contract, on the insurer’s terms, with the interest owed to the insurer. It can be taken by surrendering the policy, which ends the coverage and can produce a taxable amount measured against the adjusted cost basis of the contract. Our page on permanent life insurance sets out those mechanics.

Two cautions belong beside that. First, an advance is a debt owed to the insurer, it accrues interest, and if it is not managed it reduces what is paid at death or can put the contract at risk. Nobody is borrowing from themselves. Second, this is a life insurance contract and not a savings account, an investment plan or an education fund. It is illiquid for years, the early values are small, and a household that may need the money back within a few years is looking at the wrong instrument entirely.

The order that matters more than any of this

A household with any gap in its own coverage should insure the earners before it insures a child. That sentence is the most useful one on this page and it is the one most likely to cost this practice a sale.

The reasoning is not complicated. If a parent dies, the household loses the income that pays for the home, the food, the childcare and the years ahead. If that parent becomes too ill or too injured to work, the same income stops and the expenses rise. Those are the events that break a family financially, and they are the events insurance was invented for. Term life insurance on the parents, in an amount that reflects what the household actually spends, is the coverage that answers them, and it is inexpensive relative to what it does.

So the order runs: coverage on the people who earn, then coverage against a long interruption to that earning, then whatever money the household keeps available for an emergency, and then, if there is still room, a small contract on a child. A family that has done the first three and wants to do the fourth is making a reasonable decision. A family that skips to the fourth has insured the person whose loss would not create a financial problem and left uninsured the person whose loss would.

The rider on a parent’s policy, which is often the cheaper way

Most insurers will attach a children’s benefit to a policy on a parent. One rider generally covers every child in the family, including children born later, for one cost, and it provides a small amount on each of them until the age the contract names.

The part that matters for this page is what these riders usually include: the right to convert the coverage on a child into a permanent policy on that child, at a defined stage, without evidence of health. Where that right exists, the rider is doing the same job as a standalone policy on a child, which is preserving insurability, at a fraction of the outlay and for every child at once.

That is not a recommendation, because the terms differ and the details decide it. The amount convertible, the age at which the option must be used, and whether the coverage on the children survives the death of the parent are all contract terms, and two riders that look identical on a brochure can differ on every one of them. But a household that is considering a policy on a child without having asked whether a rider on the parent’s own coverage would do the same work is very likely paying more than it needs to.

There is a further reason the rider route often makes sense. It presupposes that the parent has a policy, which means it can only be bought in the right order.

Who owns it, and what happens when the child grows up

The parent or grandparent who applies is the owner. The owner decides everything: whether the contract continues, who the beneficiary is, whether to take value out of it. The child, until the contract is transferred, owns nothing and decides nothing.

Many families intend to hand the policy over when the child is an adult, and that is a real event with real consequences rather than a symbolic gesture. The tax rules allow a policy on a child’s life to be transferred to that child in defined circumstances without triggering a disposition, which is why these transfers are usually done that way, and the conditions are technical enough that they are worth confirming with a tax professional rather than assumed from a brochure.

The other half of the transfer is not technical at all. Once the contract belongs to the adult child, it is entirely theirs. They may keep it, they may stop paying whatever remains to be paid, and they may surrender it and spend the money on something the parent would not have chosen. A family that would find that outcome intolerable should think about it now, while the decision is still theirs, rather than at the moment of transfer.

The arrangements that get compared with this one

Four different things are proposed to parents who are thinking about a child and money, and they answer four different questions.

The comparison people expect, against a registered education savings plan or an ordinary investment account, is not on this table, because those are savings arrangements and this is an insurance contract. Comparing them on a rate of return does both a disservice: one is designed to be liquid for a known date, and the other is designed to be permanent.

What this product does badly

It is slow. The values inside a contract on a child are small for a long time, and a household that surrenders in the early years usually gets back less than it paid. This is a decision measured in decades, and a family that is not confident it can continue should buy a smaller amount or nothing.

It is small. The amount that can sensibly be bought on a child is nowhere near what that person will need at thirty five with a mortgage and children of their own. It is a starting point and a preserved right, not a completed plan, and describing it as having taken care of a child’s insurance for life is not accurate.

It commits money early. Every dollar of premium is a dollar not doing something else for a household that may have a mortgage, a gap in its own coverage, or debt at a higher cost than anything this contract will credit. The comparison that matters is not against zero.

And it is sold badly. This is the product most often presented at a kitchen table with an illustration of values decades out, in a conversation where the parents were never asked what coverage they carry themselves. The illustration is not a promise: dividends are declared annually at the insurer’s discretion and are not guaranteed, and only the guaranteed columns are contractual.

The mistakes this page exists to prevent

Insuring the child while the earners are uninsured or underinsured. It is the error this page cares about most.

Buying a standalone contract without asking whether a rider on a parent’s policy would preserve the same insurability for a fraction of the cost.

Reading an illustration as a forecast. The guaranteed values are the contract. Everything above them depends on dividends declared annually at the insurer’s discretion.

Treating it as an education fund. It is illiquid for years and it is not designed to be spent at eighteen.

Committing to payments the household will resent. A contract abandoned in its early years usually returns less than was paid into it, and the insurability it was bought to preserve goes with it.

Questions people ask

Other products

• Term life insurance
• Critical illness coverage
• Health and dental coverage
• Immediate financing arrangement