Whatever our misgivings about the standard of review expressed in Riddick, we are in agreement that the child's best interest is the paramount consideration. It is the polestar, the alpha and omega. We think Judge Avery said it best in Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964): The real matter to be considered is what is the best thing to do with these children that they may be left in a home where they are nurtured, loved, appreciated and where the environment is such that is conducive not only to the physical welfare of the child, but to its emotional and moral welfare, and where it can have the instructions from those who have control over it to inspire it to activities so as to develop a personality prepared for a life of service, and tosuccessfully compete in the society which the child faces when an adult.

While the parentage of a child is a major, and often the determinative, factor in deciding who shall have custody of the child, the overriding issue is what is in the best interest of the child. See Bryan v. Bryan, 620 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tenn. App. 1981); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964). See also Logan v. Logan, 26 Tenn. App. 667, 176 S.W.2d 601, 603 (1943), wherein it is pointed out that:

A majority of the Court in this case held that the Court of Appeals does not indulge the usual presumption of correctness, but is required to review the record de novo, citing Smith v. Smith, 188 Tenn. 430, 220 S.W.2d 627 (1949), and the more recent decisions of Born v. Born, 614 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. App. 1981), and Boyd v. Boyd, 653 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. App. 1983). Judge Tomlin, however, disagreed with his colleagues and adopted the views expressed in Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964), and the more recent opinion of Bah v. Bah, 668 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. App. 1983). In Bah v. Bah, Judge Conner stated:

In re A .C.S., No. M2008-898-COA-R3-JV, 2009 WL 348510, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb.12, 2009). "[P]aramount consideration must be given to what is in the best interest of the child, and the rights of the parents must yield to that concern." Halloran v. Kostka, 778 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App.1989) (citing Riddick v. Riddick, 497 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. Ct. App.1973); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780, 783 (1964)). "The parent seeking to change the child's surname has the burden of proving that the change will further the child's best interests."

"[P]aramount consideration must be given to what is in the best interest of the child, and the rights of the parents must yield to that concern." Halloran v. Kostka, 778 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Riddick v. Riddick, 497 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780, 783 (1964)). "The parent seeking to change the child's surname has the burden of proving that the change will further the child's best interests."

The child's best interests are of paramount concern, and that is where the chancery court should focus its attention. Lentz, supra, citing Bryan v. Bryan, 620 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn.App. 1981); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964). See also Logan v. Logan, 26 Tenn. App. 673, 176 S.W.2d 601 (1943).

Such determination is entitled to great weight and will not normally be disturbed on appeal. Rogero v. Pitt, Tenn. 1988, 759 S.W.2d 109; Bah v. Bah, Tenn. App. 1983, 668 S.W.2d 663. The critical factor in such determination must be the welfare and best interests of the child or children involved. Lentz v. Lentz, Tenn. 1986, 717 S.W.2d 876; Holloway v. Bradley, 190 Tenn. App. 565, 230 S.W.2d 1003 (1950); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 403 (1964). Findings of fact by the Trial Judge bearing upon the award of custody are reviewed de novo on appeal with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.

The paramount consideration for the trial court must always be the best interest of the child or children. Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964). Malone v. Malone, 842 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn.App. 1992).

Other evidence indicated that later on these conditions improved. In the opinion of this Court, the following remarks made by the late Judge Avery in Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 383 S.W.2d 780 (1964) are most apropos here: The real matter to be considered is what is the best thing to do with these children that they may be left in a home where they are nurtured, loved, appreciated and where the environment is such that is conducive not only to the physical welfare of the child, but to its emotional and moral welfare, and where it can have the instructions from those who have control over it to inspire it to activities so as to develop a personality prepared for a life of service, and to successfully compete in the society which the child faces when an adult.

In cases involving child custody, the court reviews the record de novo, but without the usual presumption of correctness. Smith v. Smith, 188 Tenn. 430, 439, 220 S.W.2d 627, 630 (1949); Bevins v. Bevins, 53 Tenn. App. 403, 409-410, 383 S.W.2d 780, 783 (1964). The single guiding star in determining child custody cases is the welfare and best interests of the children.