My Mom and sister flew into Houston to visit me and my girlfriend for a week. They flew home on Sunday and when I spoke to my Mom today she told me about their journey through security on Sunday.

My sister was emotional. She's 11 years old and was crying when we said goodbye. When they went through security the TSA people pulled them aside and asked why my sister was crying.

They then separated my sister from my mom, still in sight, but pulled her to the side to ask her why she was crying, where she was going, what her name was and why she was in Houston.

My Mom hasn't flown in about 10 years and was appalled at this. She said that she felt like a criminal with the way everything was handled. She wasn't familiar with TSA and how ridiculous most of them are.

What's this all about? Did they think my sister was being kidnapped or something? Don't they see kids crying in the airport when saying goodbye?

My level of disgust for this agency is at an all time high.

Sorry to read about this. If you care to escalate this outside DHS/TSA, drop a PM to me. I'll put you in touch with someone who will make the FSD's life a nightmare. (And hopefully prevent this crap from happening again at IAH)

If they really had a concern about kidnapping, they knew what flight the child was bound for. Call the airport police and let them investigate.

Normally I am all set to jump on the TSA, but in this case there is no need.

The child was visibly upset and someone took the time to make sure the kid was okay.

What would the response have been if the child had been in trouble and the TSOs did not bother to ask?

Attempting to comfort a passenger in distress? Sure, no problem.

Separating a child from her guardian and questioning her without a responsible adult present, and without probable cause? That's more problematic.

They pulled the child aside and kept the child in view of the parent. I don't see the problem. If they grilled the child that would be another matter but all it seems they did was verify that the kid was okay.

If all they were doing was verifying that the kid was okay, that could be done in the direct presence of the parent, not off to the side within the parent's view.

If, on the other hand, they were trying to figure out whether the kid was being kidnapped, they probably don't have the training to properly interview children ... much less children obviously in distress. All you need is an over-eager TSO trying to find "the big catch" to misinterpret something the child says, or ask a leading question to the kid, and now you've got a false charge against the parent.

("Why are you crying?" "Daddy wouldn't let me play with the gun! He put it in his bag!" Sure, it's the kid's bright pink water gun, but by the time they figure that out, Dad's on the floor in handcuffs ...)

That's my thing, I can understand if it was a LEO who is trained in situations like that. She was not screaming or dragging her feet to avoid leaving, she was crying. And it wasn't Aunt Bee sweetly asking "Are you ok, sugar?"

It was an interrogation. And it wasn't one TSO. It started with one and ended up with four coming over. My mom asked what the big deal was and then they asked her the "who/what/when/where/why".

Royal, thanks for the offer. However I don't know enough about it at this time to proceed other than what happened. In order to proceed I would feel comfortable knowing names and descriptions of all involved.

I disagree with this tactic and the actions of the TSO's. They're not child psychologists, guidance counselors or anything other than security agents.

It's important that people stand upto these jackbooted thugs in situations like this. Such action is indicative of a society where some in positions of authority are clearly doing the most filthy, disgusting things with their children, so they suspect everyone of doing the same thing too.

While Spiff is yet to notice and jump on that, I'll try and correct this a bit.

They aren't even "security agents", they are merely screeners (also doubling up as airline revenue protection officers), meant to ensure that you are not carrying any "prohibited items" into the sterile area. The "job" they perform is essentially outsourced and is performed by external contractors in many airports across the world (and probably performed in a better fashion and a polite manner).

What in the world does Spiff have to do with this?

And yes, we are screeners. Nothing wrong with that. It's an important function.

Regarding the OP: the child should NOT have been removed from the adult. Simple as that.

Yes. When done right, and politely, it is an important function. And while I am in your coutnry, I will even subscribe to the entire "ID required when travelling domestically" line of thought. Still doesn't make you an "agent".

(You is used as a collective noun here!)

Eh, I think too many peolle get wrapped up with the words "officers" and "agent". Various government agencies, at both the federal and state levels have employees who are "officers", but not LE. Yet, few people seem to have a problem with those titles. I think it's more that some people are upset with TSA, so the use of those words becomes an easy and cheap target.

But when in my personal life, when asked, I tell people I'm a screener for TSA.

They should not have seperated the mother from her upset 11-year-old daugher.

That could have been done by offering the daughter a place to sit down with her mother nearby and talking to them if the motive was human concern, not human concern coupled with criminal investigation.

It is not their job to investigate a crying child-- from the very limited information we have, it appears that the TSO(s) were conducting an investigation into a possible criminal matter unrelated to WEI. If all they wanted to do was make the daughter feeel better, they could have done as above and allowed her to recompose.

If they suspected that something was wrong, they should have done as yyzvoyageur suggests:

I completely agree with you. The TSA bashing has gotten so completely one sided that it is surprising to me to see a logical response.