In Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 1180, a child sought negligence per se damages against the City of Alhambra due to a police officer's failure to investigate or report suspected child abuse pursuant to Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (a), included within the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act ( 11164 et seq.). (Alejo, at p. 1184.) After considering the language of the statute, prior cases and public policy, Alejo held that section 11166, subdivision (a) imposes a mandatory duty on persons enumerated under that section to investigate and report child abuse if a reasonable person in the same position would have suspected such abuse. (Alejo, at pp. 1186-1189.) In reaching that conclusion Alejo compared the use of "shall" in section 11166, subdivision (a) with subdivision (f) of that statute which provided, "Any other person who has knowledge of or observes a child whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects has been a victim of child abuse may report the known or suspected instance of child abuse to a child protective agency." (Alejo, at p. 1187; Stats. 1996, chs. 1080, 1081, 10, 3.5.) Alejo also recognized that "the Legislature's entire scheme of child abuse prevention is thwarted" if the statutorily enumerated persons ignore reports of known or suspected child abuse. (Alejo, at p. 1187.) Alejo further noted an earlier Court of Appeal decision (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 258-259) which held that section 11166, subdivision (a) imposed a mandatory reporting requirement and found the Legislature intended that an investigation be done into every report received. (Alejo, at p. 1188.) The Court of Appeal determined a statute imposed two mandatory duties on a police officer who received an account of child abuse--an implied duty to investigate and an express duty to file a report of child abuse when an objectively reasonable person in the same situation would suspect abuse. (Id. at pp. 1186-1188.) The duty to investigate was not expressed, but the court concluded an investigation was clearly envisioned by the statute so the officer could determine whether there was a reasonable suspicion of child abuse, the determination that triggered the express duty to file a report. (Alejo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1186.) In Alejo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th 1180, the court addressed the issue of causation related to a police officer's failure to investigate or report child abuse. (Id. at p. 1190.) The court stated that whether the county welfare department would have taken steps to protect the child from physical abuse if a report had been made was "a question of fact to be determined at trial through expert testimony." (Id. at p. 1192.) The Court stated that Penal Code section section 11166 requires a law enforcement officer to report "reasonably suspected" child abuse, which impliedly requires an officer to investigate a child abuse allegation. (Alejo, supra, at pp. 1185-1190.) In Alejo, the appellate court concluded that the lower court incorrectly sustained a demurrer against the complaint when the pleading alleged that the officer negligently failed to investigate and take further action after receiving a credible report of child abuse from the child's father. (Id. at p. 1191.) After receiving the father's statement that his three-year-old son was being physically abused by the child's stepfather, the police officer, according to the pleading, did nothing. (Id. at pp. 1183-1184.) It did no investigation to determine the credibility of the claim and filed no report. (Id. at p. 1184.) It is clear that the Alejo court was concerned with an officer's duty to investigate a claim to determine whether the claim was sufficiently credible to trigger the reporting requirements under section 11164. The appellate court admonished that an officer could not escape the mandatory obligation to report by neglecting to conduct any investigation; in such a case, the failure to investigate violated the statute. (Alejo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1191.) The Alejo court, however, did not suggest that the statute placed a duty on the officer to conduct a proper and timely criminal investigation, which would lead to the possible prosecution by the district attorney. Indeed, the Alejo court explained: "The statute imposes a duty to investigate. Although section 11166, subdivision (a) does not use the term 'investigate,' it clearly envisions some investigation in order for an officer to determine whether there is a reasonable suspicion to support the child abuse allegation and to trigger a report to the county welfare department and the district attorney . . . ." (Id. at p. 1186.) In sum, in Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999), the father of a child became concerned when he observed severe facial bruising to and surrounding the child's eye. The child's mother's explanations did not dispel his concern. (Alejo v. City of Alhambra, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1183.) Three days later, a neighbor informed the father that mother and her boyfriend were using drugs and abusing the child, prompting father to call the police. (Ibid.) Despite the report, the police did not conduct any investigation into whether the child was being abused. Six weeks later, the child was severely beaten, resulting in permanent disability. (Id. at p. 1184.) The Alejo case involved a total failure to investigate, in violation of Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (a). It did not involve a situation in which a deputy conducted an investigation but concluded there was no child abuse.