My son has the same whole life policy my parents bought for me when I was an infant. It paid dividends, and I got $1000 when I was 20, right before I went to study at Gallaudet (1987 money). It paid for the road trip there, and my books and most of my expenses while I was on campus. If I had died as a child, it would have just about covered my funeral. Now that I am fifty, it is worth about 5 times what my funeral will cost. The rest goes to my son as the primary beneficiary.
When I was growing up, once a year, I got a little dividend check that was fun to get. by the time I was ten, it was about $10.
My son gets the same little surprise check every year, which we let him keep, and his funeral is covered, if, G-d forbid, something happens to him. The policy continues to earn interest, which reinvests, and he will have a tidy sum he can borrow against if he ever needs to, and leave to his family that I hope he has eventually.
That’s the kind of insurance it’s appropriate, and prudent, to take out on a child. A baby doesn’t need a physical, so if my son (or I, for that matter) had ever developed a condition that precluded life insurance, we either wouldn’t be able to get it, or would pay an exorbitant fee every month.
We pay a small fee right now for our son’s policy, but after the policy matures, there is no need to make any more payments (after twenty years), and at that point, the interest keeps reinvesting. I don’t make payments on mine.
My mother had the same policy, and my brother and I each got $18,000 after the expenses of her funeral.
Nothing suspicious in a whole life policy. But I assume the family had term life. The only children who need term life are children who are starring on a TV show, or teenagers who are Olympic athletes. You insure them against the loss of future earnings in the event of death or disability that precludes them from working.
Term life on a minor with no current earning potential is a huge red flag. It probably should be illegal.