It does combine
First, let's pose this question:
Can you combine Vampiric Touch and Touch of Death on the same attack?
I had initially thought it did not, because Vampiric Touch is a melee spell attack. However, the PHB states on page 195 about melee and ranged attacks
Many spells also involve making a ranged attack
When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means...
and
A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword.....a few spells also involve making a melee attack.
From the lack of distinction made between spell attacks and regular attacks, we can say that Vampiric Touch counts as a melee attack for the purposes of activating Touch of Death. So...
Does Touch of Death activate Vampiric Touch?
Vampiric Touch states that you "regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt". It does NOT say that you regain hit points based on the damage of this spell but rather implies damage dealt by the attack itself. You can consider Touch of Death's extra damage as applying to the melee spell attack. This works specifically because you deal necrotic damage, and the spell is sure to specify that it only heals on necrotic damage dealt. We can infer that the designers anticipated stacking melee attacks like this and wanted only necrotic to interact with the healing effect.
Thus, as a 5th level Death Cleric, you combine the two to deal 3d6 necrotic plus 15 necrotic, healing for half the total damage.
By this logic, you cannot stack your Divine Strike onto Vampiric Touch's healing, because it specifically requires a weapon attack.
It should also be noted that touch of death works with any melee spell attack, but not ranged spell attacks made on adjacent enemies.
Remember that doing this requires your DM to accept that spell attacks are the same as regular attacks for the purposes of activating Touch of Death, and that all necrotic damage applies to Vampiric Touch for healing, not just the spell itself. If one of those is an issue to your DM, you cannot combine them for healing.
More definitive proof
Thanks to Airatome for finding this tweet to Mike Mearls about this.
Asker: Death domain cleric, use vampiric touch and death touch together. Health back from VT or both?
Mike Mearls: I'd say both - both require you to spend a resource, different effects. Stacking same spell/ability is not allowed, 2 diff is ok.
remember that DM always had final say
See also: How does Vampiric Touch interact with Resistance/Vulnerability?
Certainly.
There are a number of ways to boost damage (or other stats). In general, if abilities don't have the same name, then they stack. Since they don't share a name, they stack. You can also add on other abilities. So, if your Cleric/Paladin picked up some levels in Rogue, you could get a Divinely Channeled Smite Sneak Attack with no problems.
If you're concerned this might be over powered, it's not. The reason is that Smite and Channel Divinity are limited resources; you can only do that combo once or twice per battle.
Best Answer
Yes (arguably), as long as the familiar is delivering a spell that involves a melee spell attack
The relevant section of find familiar says:
This line only applies to spells with a range of "Touch".
The Death Domain cleric's Channel Divinity option, Touch of Death, says (DMG, p. 97):
This only applies to melee attacks by the cleric. Since it's not specified, this applies to both melee weapon attacks and melee spell attacks.
One example of a touch-range cleric spell that involves a melee spell attack is inflict wounds:
Thus, the question simply comes down to whether it counts as the cleric hitting the target if their familiar is delivering the spell.
Since find familiar specifies that "If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll", I'd argue that they're functionally equivalent. Thus, I'd rule as DM that any melee spell attack delivered by the familiar that hits qualifies for Touch of Death.
The counterargument
Of course, the reverse argument could be made, too. The familiar delivers the spell "as if it had cast the spell", so one could argue that aside from using your attack modifier, it's as if the familiar made the attack - and thus argue that if the familiar delivers a spell, the cleric is not the one making the attack so they can't use Touch of Death.
It's ambiguous, and could be interpreted either way. Thus, the DM and players should come to a ruling that makes the most sense to them, and be consistent with it.