Conflicts can be considered people’s everlasting companions throughout their life. Often conflicting sides see the struggle as the only way of social being. Forgetting about the other options and missing the opportunities to resolve the conflicts constructively, the opponents sometimes resolve their conflicts because they get tired of quarreling with each other and adapting for coexistence. Most of the time, however, moderating conflicts is possible only through specific efforts directed toward their resolution. Moderating and resolving interpersonal conflicts is rather difficult, as both opponents consider themselves right. Considering that “family relationships provide the most intense laboratory for conflict resolution” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001, p. 3), this paper analyzes moderating based on the case study “I’m Not Asking For Much…” between Michelle and her mother, providing recommendations on the methods of changing the conflict using constructive communication practices. Outlining the best-recommended approaches for moderating conflicts, it should be stated that the climax of the conflict, i.e., the confrontation that was described by Michelle as a “knock-down-drag-out, fight-to-the-death” confrontation,” is merely caused by choosing the wrong approaches in solving the conflict. Stated as usually highly unsuccessful, the approach is based on trying to change the other person. (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001, p. 239) As the conflict was raised between adults, one of whom is apparently has a great experience and older than the other, it is not easy, if really possible, to change someone’s solid perception of how things should be done, especially regarding children, regardless of their age. Additionally, considering the inequality in the positions, i.e., mother and daughter, altering conflict conditions can also be seen as an ineffective method of handling the presented conflict situations. Accordingly, it should be stated that the main reason that led to the climax of the conflict can be seen in the problem of avoidance, and in that case, avoidance means avoiding conflict resolution rather than conflict initiation. Accordingly, it can be seen that implementing communication would be the best option for the presented case study. In that regard, a constructive interaction can be seen through the following three methods:   * Dialogue process – it can be said that in the case study, Michelle and her mother were having a conversation rather than a dialogue where the latter assumes valuing the other’s point of view and acknowledging that neither party possess the whole truth.   * Fractionation – can be seen as “a process of converting one issue into more than one.” (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006, p. 422) It can be seen that Michelle never follows this rule, whereas, on the contrary, she attempts to enlarge the conflict by combining events from previous encounters with her mother. Smaller parts of the conflict are easier to settle, where “new alternative might emerge” (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 422)   * Reframing –as “one of the basic communication skills of moderating conflict” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001, p. 259), it implies changing the perception of the conflict into a mutual problem “to be resolved (or solved) through joint cooperative efforts” (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 34) In that regard, what Michelle should basically do is to reframe the problem from the issue of Michelle al