In the Lewis case and other cases, we have repeatedly held in the determination of the custody of a minor child in a divorce action the best interest of the child should be the paramount consideration of the court, and where it does not appear that the trial court has abused its discretion, this court will not reverse the order of the trial court. Adams v. Adams, Okla., 294 P.2d 831; Watson v. Watson, 202 Okla. 261, 212 P.2d 667; Cochran v. Cochran, 198 Okla. 52, 174 P.2d 913; Bowring v. Bowring, 196 Okla. 520, 166 P.2d 415; and Bush v. Bush, 185 Okla. 443, 92 P.2d 363. In examining the record we can find no evidence indicating that the husband or the wife are not fit and proper persons to have the care and custody of the child or that either of them could not provide a suitable home for its care and education, nor do we find a change in condition since the rendition of the divorce that would warrant a change in permanent custody.
"While the best interest of the minor child should be the paramount guide in considering a proposed change of custody, the rights and desires of both father and mother should be given consideration." In Cochran v. Cochran, 198 Okla. 52, 174 P.2d 913, this court affirmed a decree giving custody of children to husband from June 15 to August 15 of each year. However, in that case the mother had removed the children to another state under the original decree granting her full-time custody.