That is why many people have life insurance. It's probably not common in large parts of the world, and requires a certain income level to pay for, but it can make a situation where a parent dies a lot easier to cope with, at least the financial worries go away, or at least are delayed.

In my country (New Zealand) we have a government run, compulsory, insurance scheme for accidents and death. If you die by accident then your family gets a payout based on a percentage of your (former) income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat...

We don't have the right to sue for accidents, relying on ACC for compensation.

When does the risk increase to a point where it becomes suicide and the insurance doesn't pay out?

Most life insurance policies in the US do pay out for suicide, typically after 12-24 months.

Why should it matter whether it was suicide or not?

"Heh, I'm going to kill myself so I don't have to work to support my family and they can have insurance money instead" is not a thought many people would have.

I think the better way to word this is likely "having your primary support halved does not help". It's likely to forestall the obvious insurance rebuttal by not specifically tying itself to financial concerns, as emotional and educational support are at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion.

> having your primary support halved

That's assuming a two parent income. What if one parent stays home with the children instead of working? Yes, you can get insurance. No, it doesn't replace a lost parent.

> That's assuming a two parent income.

No, it's specifically worded to not be just about income. That was the point of rewording it as "support".