After the juvenile court has set a section 366.26 hearing, the child's need for stability and permanency is paramount and outweighs the parent's interest in reunification. At that point, the parent can succeed on a section 388 petition only by overcoming the rebuttable presumption in favor of continued foster care and proving that, due to changed circumstances, reunification is in the child's best interest. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310.) The proper factors for a juvenile court to consider in deciding whether to grant a section 388 petition are: "(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been." (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532.) In In re Gladys L. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 845, the child had become a dependent of the court while in her mother's custody. The father was a nonoffending parent. After submitting to the court's jurisdiction, he disappeared for three years and then reappeared at the section 366.26 hearing and requested visitation. (Id. at p. 847.) The opinion in the case does not indicate what relationship the father and child had shared before the child was detained or the circumstances of the father's disappearance.