The advice from Marian is quite correct and well worth researching, but if you choose to follow that route you will likely end up with an implementation of what might be called the "hostage trick".
The hostage trick consists of your root process spawning an artificial child process which spends all its time in the stopped state. This "hostage" will be spawned immediately before the first child process which does real work in your (multi-process) program.
The hostage process is made the leader of its own process group and then enters a loop in which it stops itself with "raise(SIGSTOP)". If it is ever continued, it checks to see whether its parent has terminated (i.e. whether it has been re-parented or cannot signal its parent with the null signal (ESRCH)). If the parent has terminated, then the hostage should terminate, otherwise it should re-suspend with another "raise(SIGSTOP)".
You need to be careful about race conditions: e.g. for the re-parenting test take care to cache the parent-process-id for the hostage as the return value from "getpid()" before "fork()"-ing the hostage and also make "setpgid()" calls downstream of "fork()" in both parent and child. You then need to consider what you do if someone "kill(., SIGKILL)"s the hostage!
True, you can put a SIGCHLD handler in the parent to re-spawn it, but that requires considerable care to preserve the continuity of the identity of the hostage's process group; maybe there were other child processes at the time of the SIGKILL and the replacement hostage should go in the original process group, maybe there weren't and the original process group has evaporated.
Even if you get that right, the fact that you have put a "fork()" call in a handler for an asynchronous signal (SIGCHLD) will likely open another can of worms if your main process uses multiple threads.
Because of these difficulties I would advise against using the hostage trick unless the child processes run code over which you have no control (and to think seriously about the costs in complexity and maintainability even then). If you have control of the code of the child processes, then it is much simpler to use a "pipe()".
You create the pipe in the parent process and manage the file descriptors to ensure that the parent process is the sole writer and that each child process allocates one file descriptor to the read-side. If you do this, then the termination of the parent process (whether due to SIGKILL or any other cause) is communicated to the child processes by the EoF condition on the read side of the pipe as the last writer terminates.
If you want to treat SIGKILL specially, then you can use a protocol on the pipe whereby the parent process sends a termination message advising the children of its termination status on all normal terminations and on catchable fatal signals, and leaves the children to infer that the parent was killed by SIGKILL in the event that the read-side of the pipe delivers an EoF without a preceding termination message.