So it's okay with you if the judge just "assigns" 'fathership' to someone over the wishes of the mother, who's done nothing to have her parental rights terminated. You can't tell me by what RIGHT he does this, can you? But as long as he thinks it's "fair" it's okay with you.
As both individuals had been parenting these kids for their entire life, I think the judge wanted to provide continuity for the kids
Weren't they with the mother for five years after the father left? If the judge was worried about continuity, he would have left them with her. And where does he get off "assigning" custody of a teenager away from his natural mother and onto a person who isn't even remotely related biologically? He is basically saying "I have decided YOU are this boy's father (even though you're a woman), you can adopt him whether the mother wishes it or not, and by the way, you get custody of him too." The parental rights of convicted murderers get more respect.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question. What made the mother less fit? A shrill voice on television?
What makes you assume the judge was thinking of the children rather than a ground-breaking legal precedent?