Wait, how did you quantify all that? Why $100k for EF? You don't know what the income needs are. Even if you knew what they were now you would have to back out the current debt payments.
I've not seen a definitive formula for an EF though conventional wisdom indicates a min of 6 months living expenses. Some argue 3 months yet others 12 months. The primary driver for the # of months of living expenses is the time to find another job. For a young single I'd lean 3 to 6. For a dual income married couple I lean +/- 6. For a family with young kids and big expenses I'd lean 6 to 12. I'm conservative. For up to 6 months use very liquid accounts, i.e., MMF though CDs can work. If you have an EF that includes months 7 to 12, that amount can be tiered in short-term bond funds.
And on what basis did you establish a need for life insurance? (Dog doo doo is also cheap but that does not mean anyone should buy it.)
Dog doo doo cheap - really? I can show you where to get it for free.
Two young kids. Private preparatory schools. An implied expectation of college. Expensive life style. Term life insurance for a reasonable death benefit amount makes sense through at least the years when the kids finish high school - when purchased directly from an large, well established company. After that, the kids can fend for themselves in college and mom can sell the house. If the wealthy in-laws can step in and cover the living expenses then perhaps not. All insurance is a trade off b/w a definite annual loss (the premium) versus a potential future loss.
The planning offered by mutual fund companies is fine but mostly cookie-cutter. But if the purpose of planning is to determine the need for investment, why incur the obligation to invest first? Doesn't make sense. The mutual fund company is unlikely to recommend paying off debt since they are geared toward suggesting which mutual funds to buy.
You rephrased essentially what I posted - a big MF company, like a Vanguard or T Rowe, may be a good match for them given the caveats I mentioned. The FP services I've seen do not obligate - the client just pays a higher price for the plan. But if you're going to put $500k or $1Mk into Vanguard or T. Rowe, I recall that you either get a free FP or a very discounted one (depends on the amount invested) - it's a no brainer to use the free or very low cost service if investing in that type of established, safe, low cost fund anyway.
And this would be AFTER paying off the debts.
DGP - you seem to be making a lot of unwarranted assumptions!
So which are the assumptions and which are unwarranted?