Wrong! Evidence seized by the TSO exceeding the Constitutional limits of the narrowly-defined administrative search was suppressed. That's because the TSO lacked the legal authority to intrude on Fourth Amendment rights beyond the minimally intrusive but otherwise necessary ambit of preventing weapons, explosives and incendiaries into the sterile area. If you're going to act like a lawyer, you're going to need to go to law school. You clearly do not understand the holding in Fofana, or its significance. Did you read the opinion or just some 1 paragraph summary somewhere?

It is not about a TSA agent "being concerned with the safety of an 11 year old child." The TSA agent can express that concern, as can any other citizen, by summoning a LEO. It is about a TSA agent illegally exercising control over the child without obtaining consent, and contrary to the wishes, of the mother. This is a constitutional issue -- the Fourth Amendment precludes government interference with, inter alia, liberty, except under very, very specific circumstances. Both the case law and the enabling statute for TSA make it very clear that this is not one of them.

As I said, don't play lawyer. You're in way over your head.

I am stating that I couldn't care less what the Humane Society has to say about law.

First of all, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that neither TSOs, nor anyone else other than a LEO, have the legal authority to separate a child from its parent. Try to keep up, here. I'm saying that, by doing what the OP described, the TSOs in question were acting in violation of the law. So, care to make a little wager as to whether I'm wrong about that?

So what do you do that makes you such an expert on the law?