I am more conservative on insurance than others. Either one of us could have (almost) always gotten by without it -- but we didn't want some horrible event to destroy the life we had planned. E.g., I could have sold the house and bought something smaller and cheaper, but I didn't want to be forced to uproot the kids at a horrible time for everyone -- and I didn't want to have to work until 70 because we couldn't save much on my income alone. So we looked at what amount of money would be necessary to allow the survivor NOT to make major changes (at least, not unless/until I chose to). For us, that was pretty much the difference between our daycare payments and a live-in nanny, plus a little extra to cover the lost retirement savings from losing the second income. That ended up still being a noticeable chunk, but significantly less than what the insurance agents would say we needed. But we were also younger at the time and had really cheap term insurance.
In your case, do the math both ways. It sounds like you could move home, live cheaply, and get free childcare help -- but would you want to do that? And if not, how much insurance would you really need to stay put? You need to weigh that out against the cost of his rising premiums. One option may be to just decrease the amount of his insurance to something that would give you a chunk of cash to cover the cost of the move and the initial setup costs on the other end.
