08/10/2025
PARENTS SHOULD GET INSURED FIRST, NOT THEIR CHILDREN.
Some parents buy life insurance for their kids (like a VUL or endowment plan) but don’t have life insurance for themselves.
At first glance, it may seem like “securing their future,” but in reality, it reverses the correct purpose of insurance.
⚠️ The Risk
When the parent (the breadwinner) is uninsured but the child is, the real financial risk remains unprotected.
If the parent — the source of income — passes away or becomes critically ill:
• The family’s income stops.
• The child’s policy cannot continue because premiums won’t be affordable anymore.
• The child’s future needs (education, daily living, etc.) become jeopardized.
• The insurance on the child does nothing to replace lost income or sustain the household.
In short: The one who provides is unprotected, while the one who depends is insured — but for what?
🚫 Why It’s Wrong (Ethically and Financially)
1. Insurance is protection, not investment.
Insuring a child for “future returns” misunderstands the core purpose — which is income protection against loss of life or earning ability.
2. It gives false security.
Parents feel they’ve “secured” their child, but in reality, they’ve left the family financially exposed.
3. It distorts priorities.
The order should always be:
Parent → Spouse → Children,
because the protection must start with those whose lives others depend on.
4. It’s often marketed wrongly.
Some agents highlight “savings for the child” without explaining that the parent should be the insured, not just the payer.
✅ The Right Way
Before getting policies for children, ensure the parents are adequately insured first.
A properly structured plan protects the breadwinner so that no matter what happens, the children’s needs — education, food, home — continue to be met.