Confused about the meaning of this sentence

I see your point and it seems to make sense that ... the standard possession order (SPO) are intended: to both (i) and (ii).

I am not so much worried about the word "guidelines" in the legal sense. From my understanding, the courts are bound to the guidelines.
It is a convoluted mess in which no one [appellate courts] seems to agree.

The Texas Supreme Court has rulings that apply to these matters, however, they apply indirectly.
Meaning that Tex. Supreme Court (TSC)has yet to hear a case on this exact question of law.

What the TSC did rule on are aspects that:

• "By focusing on the language enacted, we encourage the legislature to enact unambiguous statutes, we discourage courts from usurping the legislature's role of deciding what the law should be, and we enable citizens to rely on the laws as published without having to worry that they may carry some hidden meaning"... "ensures that ordinary citizens are able to rely on the language of a statute to mean what it says."
  
• "words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to rules of grammar and common usage"
• "We rely on the plain meaning of the text as expressing legislative intent unless a different meaning is supplied by legislative definition or is apparent from the context, or the plain meaning leads to absurd results

When the text is ambiguous the TSC ruled:

• "We should not give one provision a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible to such a construction standing alone"
  
• "If two statutes are in conflict, "we will construe the different provisions in a way that harmonizes rather than conflicts.""
• "noting that we presume the Legislature "chooses a statute's language with care, including each word chosen for a purpose, while purposefully omitting words not chosen"

Without getting too deep into the statutes, I can say that there are 4 (four) types of conservatorships (custody).
1) Sole Managing Conservator (meaning that one parent has all the rights to the child... generally the other parent would be named Possessory Conservator or have her/his parental rights stripped)
2) Joint Managing Conservators (JMC) (meaning that both parents share the rights to the child... meaning both parents are found to be fit and in the child's best interest)
3) Possessory Conservator (meaning that the parent has been found to have committed some wrongdoing that overcame the presumption that (s)he are supposed to be named as JMC)
4) Parental rights are stripped

It is my reading of the statute that Possessory Conservator can have her/his possession restricted to keep in line with the best interest of the child (in other words if (s)he has hurt the child in any way (abuse for instance), then the courts can restrict possession to keep the child safe, however, still keep the parental rights intact.

I am trying to figure out how and why the district courts [lower civil court] (and some appellate courts) can interpret this to allow the court to limit possession of a child to a parent named as JMC.

SPO is the typical possession held by most divorced parents, 1st, 3rd, and 5th weekends of the month, half of the holidays, and most of the summer.

I know my thoughts are scattered, but I hope that makes sense.

Thank you