Even though she is only 16 and already has a 2-year-old son, A.C. is trying to make it work.

She continues to be a good student at her Harrisburg-area high school, and she works part time at McDonald's.

She hopes to go to college to study criminal justice.

But according to a lawsuit filed against her school district Thursday in federal court, she might not get the chance.

The complaint, filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the civil law clinic at Widener University School of Law, accuses the Central Dauphin School District of discriminating against the girl because of her status as a teen mother.

Filed by the student, who is identified only by the initials A.C., and her mother, C.B., the lawsuit seeks an injunction to bar the district from enforcing truancy laws against them.

"Most teen mothers don't have the grit our client has," said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney. "She's absolutely determined to do it all and do it well."

According to the complaint, A.C. has missed a number of school days to care for her child. Some of those absences are because she had to take the boy to doctor's appointments, she claims. Other times, if her mother cannot watch her son, she has no other available child care.

But the school district has ruled that those absences are unexcused and, therefore, its officials believe A.C. and her mother are guilty of violating state truancy laws.

The school district has filed charges against A.C. four times and against her mother five times, according to the lawsuit.

Because of those violations, A.C. has been given detention, in-school suspension and had her driver's license suspended.

A district judge hearing one of her truancy cases threatened to call Children & Youth Services and have her son removed if she continued to miss school, the lawsuit said.

A.C. lives with her mother and three younger siblings. Her mom has been on disability for a number of years.

Under Central Dauphin's attendance policy, parents are given legal notice of a first truancy offense after three unexcused absences. Additional unexcused days can lead to fines or imprisonment.

However, under Pennsylvania's Compulsory Attendance Law, there is an exception for absences due to mental, physical or "other urgent reasons."

According to a recommendation issued by the state Department of Education on Sept. 1, 2003, "urgent reasons," can apply to a pregnant or parenting student.

"For example, the board could grant excuses in situations where a parenting student does not have responsible day care available," the document reads.

But James E. Ellison, the Central Dauphin solicitor, said that decision is strictly at the school board's discretion.

"That's not something we're willing to do," he said. "Out of 501 school districts statewide, there isn't a single one that's taken the department up on its offer."

He noted that the state Department of Education recommendations are not binding.

Even so, he quoted another section of the state document, which says, "Urgent reasons, however, are to be strictly construed and may not be interpreted to permit irregular attendance."

According to the lawsuit, district officials have tried to encourage home schooling for A.C. or to have her switch to the Dauphin County vocational technical school because it has day care.

"To suggest just because she has a baby she should give up those dreams [of college] and resolve herself to the kind of career Vo-Tech would train her for is a complete abdication of the responsibility to educate this girl," Ms. Roper said. "This is an exceptional student."

But Mr. Ellison said the offer of home-schooling was a good one.

Missing many days of school, he said, "is not consistent with getting an education. You can't be educated by sitting at home.

"The school district has gone above and beyond the call of duty in assisting this particular student and her situation. This isn't a case where we have a teenage mom, and we're being heartless."

Ms. Roper would not speculate on the district's motives. Often times, school officials simply are attached to their rules, she said.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, as well as both compensatory and punitive damages against the school district.

The lawsuit also names as defendants Superintendent John A. Scola, Principal Todd A. Neuhard and home school officer Sherry L. Conway.

The plaintiffs hope that the lawsuit will set new precedent and provide relief to teens who have babies.

"We don't have a body of court rulings on the rights of teen parents to take care of their children," Ms. Roper said.

In the School District of Philadelphia, for example, students are allowed to miss only four weeks after giving birth before they must return to classes.

"We know this happens all over the country," she said. "I know it happens all over Pennsylvania."